I'm surprised more courses aren't considering this. What they may be sacrificing in the lushness of the course, they will be adding in fewer expenses, and it would differentiate the course from its nearby competitors. I think this trend will be growing.
I'm surprised more courses aren't considering this. What they may be sacrificing in the lushness of the course, they will be adding in fewer expenses, and it would differentiate the course from its nearby competitors. I think this trend will be growing.
Truth be told for most courses it's impossible to eliminate all of them.
In Canada, for example, we can't get by the issue of snow mould protection (although Brewer's tea has shown promise).
The real push should be to minimize inputs.
Now saying that, all the superintendent I know began to do this long before it was an issue.
The Bethpage studies by Dr. Grant on the green course are very eye-opening.
The conclusion was North-East courses can not go completely chemical free
The can get their inputs down to a minimum.
They need to allowed to be more aggressive with their cultural practices (aerating and topdressing) and back off green speed to around 9.
That's where everything gets a little tougher. :)
I'm surprised more courses aren't considering this. What they may be sacrificing in the lushness of the course, they will be adding in fewer expenses, and it would differentiate the course from its nearby competitors. I think this trend will be growing.
Truth be told for most courses it's impossible to eliminate all of them.
In Canada, for example, we can't get by the issue of snow mould protection (although Brewer's tea has shown promise).
The real push should be to minimize inputs.
Now saying that, all the superintendent I know began to do this long before it was an issue.
The Bethpage studies by Dr. Grant on the green course are very eye-opening.
The conclusion was North-East courses can not go completely chemical free
The can get their inputs down to a minimum.
They need to allowed to be more aggressive with their cultural practices (aerating and topdressing) and back off green speed to around 9.
That's where everything gets a little tougher. :)
Andrew,
it is more than possible to bring courses through even a 5 month snow covered winter with little to no snow mould damage. On your last point you are correct IMHO with the increase in cultural practices and speeds. I would say that I am always very sceptical about studies by Dr. This or Dr. That as when you look a little deeper at such experts backgrounds it often throws ups links to this, that or the other company with a vested interest.
I would hasten to add that I am sure Dr. Grant is very good and I am in no way saying that this is true of him.
Jon
I'm pretty sure The Resort at Squaw Creek near Lake Tahoe here in CA is required to be "chemical free," not only not using pesticides, but using non-synthetic fertilizers as well. If it's not, the rumor that it is has certainly perpetuated itself without much rebuttal.
http://www.squawcreek.com/lake-tahoe-golf.php
(http://img188.imageshack.us/img188/5126/img6885yn.jpg)
I have a new client this spring who wants to try to raise the bar for low-input golf maintenance. We are just starting to discuss how. The small town where the course will be located has an "organic" farming policy so their first question was whether we could have an "organic" golf course, but there is no accepted definition of what that would mean for golf, and two of the consultants were quick to point out that many "organic" treatments can also be harmful to the local streams.In the south in particular, I feel that this would be very tough to do. With the threat of contamination, both playabiliity wise and astetics, it would ber VERY difficult to build a golf course and have "pure" playing surfaces. In fact, most courses that renovate now use some sort of soil fumigate during construction OR renovation.
I've also sent one of our young colleagues, Jonathan Reisetter, over to Scotland for a couple of months to work with the Golf Environment Organization on writing their guidelines for sustainable golf courses. They are the first group with sufficient roots and credibility in the environmental community to try and pull off some sort of standards for golf courses that would be accepted worldwide -- and if we could just get local politics out of the equation, I think golf could come to be seen as a positive land use instead of the toxic mess some imagine it to be.
The Golf Environment Organization has asked me whether they might participate on Golf Club Atlas in some capacity, and this would be an excellent place to start ... I will copy this thread to Ran and see if I can make that happen.
I have a new client this spring who wants to try to raise the bar for low-input golf maintenance. We are just starting to discuss how. The small town where the course will be located has an "organic" farming policy so their first question was whether we could have an "organic" golf course, but there is no accepted definition of what that would mean for golf, and two of the consultants were quick to point out that many "organic" treatments can also be harmful to the local streams.In the south in particular, I feel that this would be very tough to do. With the threat of contamination, both playabiliity wise and astetics, it would ber VERY difficult to build a golf course and have "pure" playing surfaces. In fact, most courses that renovate now use some sort of soil fumigate during construction OR renovation.
I've also sent one of our young colleagues, Jonathan Reisetter, over to Scotland for a couple of months to work with the Golf Environment Organization on writing their guidelines for sustainable golf courses. They are the first group with sufficient roots and credibility in the environmental community to try and pull off some sort of standards for golf courses that would be accepted worldwide -- and if we could just get local politics out of the equation, I think golf could come to be seen as a positive land use instead of the toxic mess some imagine it to be.
The Golf Environment Organization has asked me whether they might participate on Golf Club Atlas in some capacity, and this would be an excellent place to start ... I will copy this thread to Ran and see if I can make that happen.
Tom with that in mind, I would suspect that there will be an even stronger push for the use of fescues, as that do not need nearly the inputs that the bentgrasess doI have a new client this spring who wants to try to raise the bar for low-input golf maintenance. We are just starting to discuss how. The small town where the course will be located has an "organic" farming policy so their first question was whether we could have an "organic" golf course, but there is no accepted definition of what that would mean for golf, and two of the consultants were quick to point out that many "organic" treatments can also be harmful to the local streams.In the south in particular, I feel that this would be very tough to do. With the threat of contamination, both playabiliity wise and astetics, it would ber VERY difficult to build a golf course and have "pure" playing surfaces. In fact, most courses that renovate now use some sort of soil fumigate during construction OR renovation.
I've also sent one of our young colleagues, Jonathan Reisetter, over to Scotland for a couple of months to work with the Golf Environment Organization on writing their guidelines for sustainable golf courses. They are the first group with sufficient roots and credibility in the environmental community to try and pull off some sort of standards for golf courses that would be accepted worldwide -- and if we could just get local politics out of the equation, I think golf could come to be seen as a positive land use instead of the toxic mess some imagine it to be.
The Golf Environment Organization has asked me whether they might participate on Golf Club Atlas in some capacity, and this would be an excellent place to start ... I will copy this thread to Ran and see if I can make that happen.
Tony:
I understand it would be very difficult (maybe even impossible) to do. So do the guys at GEO. So what we should be trying to figure out is what things we can concentrate on to improve the situation, instead of just throwing out the whole idea as "impossible". [For starters, maybe we can overcome the rush to fumigate the soil; long-term, maybe we can reduce the insistence on "pure" playing surfaces no matter what it means for the environment.]
They are not trying to make golf obsolete, they're just trying to make it a better citizen.
We absolutely do need a leading light in this area... You can continue doing your best environmentally on a micro-level but we need some PR to show the business movers and general public that golf can be sustainable... The only way to do that is to have as many industry leaders try to aid GEO as possible and shape the way that golf will be seen and developed...
Golf courses are closing ten-a-penny at the moment... There has to be an underlying reason for that... GEO are trying to tackle that head on.
One of their partners is Syngenta, a "leader" in the chemical industry. Using chemicals on the land is not sustainable, it's killing the soil.
Those are just the kind of bedfellows that make me suspicious of where this is all going. Looking at it another way, I can get my emotional needs fulfilled at a church or a whorehouse, they are both the same in that regard, I just want to know which one I'm being led to.
Ally if I help lead them down the right path as you suggest will this be done with the full disclosure that the use of chemicals is not sustainable. If some how, some way there is a path that can be followed that leads to a chemical free golf course do you think a partner in the program like Sygenta is going to let me lead them there. Further, there are professional tour partners who to various degrees conduct tournaments on course that may be chemical users in order to project a certain look, not environmentally sustainable, and those developments may not be the right kind of sustainable economic model you suggest is a part of the larger scope of this organization. It appears by the list of their partners the public relations program is in full swing, but in order to be truthful they should stop the sustainable talk.
Steve,
'native grasses' are grasses that occur naturally in the area so yes poa annua can be one if it fits the criterea. In Switzerland there is amongst others poa, festuca rubra, agrostis stol... These are the main ones though the list is quite long.
Jeff,
would you put cow pats on your green?? please
Jon
I don't know much about chemicals or their specific impact on the environment, but I gotta believe that it is better for those in the golf industry to be leading any sort of movement for the reduction of chemicals (and water for that matter) rather than following leaders in this trend which is sure to gain more prominence in the years to come. Golf needs more movers and shakers rather than "wait and see" types. Its not as if golf has some sort of stellar reputation in this area which gives it tons of breathing space.
Ciao
Sean,
I think a good many superintendents have been leaders in this regard. It will be a long difficult battle. The Rodale Institute just up the road from me has been a leader in organic farming for over 50 years and they are still immersed in a huge battle with chemical companies and its entrenchment in the farming community.
If golf takes too long, is that an environmental issue? Maybe golf should abandon 18 holes and go to 12 hole for recreational golf? It would save turf, too. I am not sure golf as a basic golf model is broken completely, but no doubt it can use some tweaks. You should start a separate topic on how you think the current and traditional golf model is flawed, and how it ought to change. But use facts and averages from the GCSAA or USGA, not a broad "everyone knows" type statement.
Steve,
'native grasses' are grasses that occur naturally in the area so yes poa annua can be one if it fits the criterea. In Switzerland there is amongst others poa, festuca rubra, agrostis stol... These are the main ones though the list is quite long.
Jeff,
would you put cow pats on your green?? please
Jon
Jon, are these grasses "native" to Switzerland or simply "indigenous"?
Carl
However, I agree right now a ban all chemicals is not the right approach. Finding alternatives is something many superintendents will do and should be encouraged. They can only go so far without risking their job. The golfer’s expectations need to change in order to fully unleash their potential to find better, safer ways to maintain golf courses.
Brix??? Looked like a nice restaurant in Napa, but I don't think that's what you meant. And I couldn't figure out the refractometer. I read of a guy that is or was considered the best ultra-marathoner in the world, and he basically went to a high nutrient diet I think, but interestingly he does not eat anything that has animal product in it. So here is a guy taking his body to extreme conditioning and there is no milk, meat, cheese, egg and on in his diet. I even read that Ray Lewis, who is probably the premier defensive player in the NFL over the past 10 years has not eaten meat in 10 years, although I saw another story that seem to contradict this. Further, in the same book about the marathoner I read that the majority of cancer survivor that return meat to their diet have a reoccurrence. A large majority of cancer survivors that never go back to meat do not have a reoccurrence.
I would like to remind everyone that these "high nutrient" diet or any other food movement have absolutely NO BASIS in science. We once thought high protein diet was bad, but with new info, that is in doubt. The same goes for high fat as well.
Only diet scientifically proven to prolong your life is severe calorie restriction diet (where you pretty much starve yourself). So, if you want to help the environment AND live longer, just eat less (a LOT LESS).
The human body contains chemical compounds, such as water, carbohydrates (sugar, starch, and fiber), amino acids (in proteins), fatty acids (in lipids), and nucleic acids (DNA and RNA). These compounds in turn consist of elements such as carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, phosphorus, calcium, iron, zinc, magnesium, manganese, and so on. All of these chemical compounds and elements occur in various forms and combination's (e.g. hormones, vitamins, phospholipids, hydroxyapatite), both in the human body and in the plant and animal organisms that humans eat.
“Populations that eat a so-called Western diet-generally defined as a diet consisting of lots of processed foods and meat, lots of added fat and sugar, lots of refined grains, lots of everything except vegetables, fruits and whole grains-invariably suffer from high rates of so-called Western diseases: obesity, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and cancer. Virtually all the obesity and type 2 diabetes, 80 percent of the cardiovascular disease, and more than one third of all cancers can be linked to this diet.”
Tom, I think a few well place articles on the effect of pesticides and herbicides on children would go a long way in reducing their usage. After all, some of the most well conditioned clubs also have some very large homes sitting on its fairways housing some very influential people and their kids. But I am not sure creating hysteria is a way to go either.
A couple of thoughts on this topic:
...IMO If you really want to do something for yourself and your family get a refractometer and learn about "brix"...
I think that there are good biological products that supply the nutrition and protection that the plant needs. But I don't see how they are any more GREEN or environmentally better than adding simple ag-grade soluble nutrients to your fungicide applications.
In fact I think the biological programs are less GREEN than soluble feeding because those programs typically require way way way more product, labor, and fuel to apply.
One of the few truly chemical-free golf courses I know of sprays the golf course almost every night with fungi-killing bacteria. How is that more GREEN than spraying your golf course with a basic fungicide and a tenth of a pound of urea every 10 days or so?
And you still don't have an effective way to control weeds or insects without some use of chemicals. A couple years ago I called up one the top chemical-free superintendents and he was spraying a bunch of chemicals, and way more often than I do.
Steve, great post. I am much agreement with your sentiments.
A natural environment took many million years to find its "balance", asking it to find its own balance while exerting such artificial demands on them in even few decades is asking for impossible.
Growing grass in non-natural grassland is just not natural. To grow it to resemble a perfect carpet is even many more magnitude unnatural on top of that. Nature just does not work that way. I am not sure how you can create a "natural" and "balanced" environment while trying to create something so unnatural.
The only way we can make that happen is via creating a genetically modified grass that is custom made for its given environment OR genetically modified microbial ecosystem that creates desired environment. Neither is within reaches of our current technology.
To put it another way, trying to keep a golf course in most parkland environment is like dropping a group of blond, blue eyed people in the middle of Tokyo and expecting them to stay exactly the same way over many generations. Many will simply reject the new environment and leave (i.e. die), some will reproduce with natives, and hardly any traces of them will be left after few generations if left to their own devices without huge amount of outside influences.
Golf courses today just are not natural. Conditioning you expect are even less natural. Those kind of results can only be achieved in highly artificial (and chemically involved) ways.
It's important to remember that in no way are we able to let grass grow "naturally" while it is being mowed daily at 3 mm or even semi-weekly at 12 mm. Grass did not evolve that way and does not exist in nature under those conditions. It will not survive in the form of a golfing surface without intensive management and considerable inputs.
I believe that soil microbiology is an inexact science at best, and there is too much unknown to make any evaluation of balances or ratios there in. To illustrate my point, I quote from "A Short History of Nearly Everything" by Bill Bryson.
"The most comprehensive handbook of micro-organisms, Bogey's Manual of Systematic Bacteriology, lists about four thousand types of bacteria. In the 1980's, a pair of Norwegian scientists, Jostein Goksyor and Vigdis Torsvik, collected a gram of random soil from a beech forest near their lab in Bergen and carefully analysed its bacterial content. They found that this single small sample contained between four thousand and five thousand separate bacterial species, more than the whole of Bogey's Manual. They then travelled to a coastal location a few miles away, scooped up another gram of earth, and found that it contained four or five thousand other species."
If over nine thousand species could be found in just two grams of soil from neighboring sites in Norway, how many different microbes must there be in all the radically different sites around the world? According to some estimates, there may be as many as 400 million.
Trying to find a "balance" in such an expansive, unknown, biological system would seem to be an impossible task. No one knows what we're standing on, or how it works, really.
Steve, great post. I am much agreement with your sentiments.
A natural environment took many million years to find its "balance", asking it to find its own balance while exerting such artificial demands on them in even few decades is asking for impossible.
Growing grass in non-natural grassland is just not natural. To grow it to resemble a perfect carpet is even many more magnitude unnatural on top of that. Nature just does not work that way. I am not sure how you can create a "natural" and "balanced" environment while trying to create something so unnatural.
The only way we can make that happen is via creating a genetically modified grass that is custom made for its given environment OR genetically modified microbial ecosystem that creates desired environment. Neither is within reaches of our current technology.
To put it another way, trying to keep a golf course in most parkland environment is like dropping a group of blond, blue eyed people in the middle of Tokyo and expecting them to stay exactly the same way over many generations. Many will simply reject the new environment and leave (i.e. die), some will reproduce with natives, and hardly any traces of them will be left after few generations if left to their own devices without huge amount of outside influences.
Golf courses today just are not natural. Conditioning you expect are even less natural. Those kind of results can only be achieved in highly artificial (and chemically involved) ways.
Richard,
I find your post quite disturbing and narrow in its approach to this subject. You seem to paint a picture of the natural world in chaos for millenia until it finally finds a balance when an environment changes. This is simply not true. The environment of an area or habitat can change dramatically and massively in a very short time and mother nature is quite adept at dealing with these changes and adapting.
You say you are in agreement with Steve's post where he clearly states that we have no real understanding of the way nature maintains itself.
quote 'Trying to find a "balance" in such an expansive, unknown, biological system would seem to be an impossible task. No one knows what we're standing on, or how it works, really.'
The solution you seem to favour is to quote 'The only way we can make that happen is via creating a genetically modified grass that is custom made for its given environment OR genetically modified microbial ecosystem that creates desired environment'. Which you then point out is beyond our knowledge. I would say thank goodness! Why on earth would any sane person want scientists poking about in things such a genetical changes when there is not the knowledge to see what long term effects this might have on the environment.
You say that the golf course is not a natural environment, then maybe you just haven't seen every course as I can assure you there are many examples of courses that provide a very natural enviroment with little to no chemical input. Grasses are grazed down to a quit short height (5-10mm) by sheep and rabbits and this on a suprisingly regular basis with no ill effect, no chemicals to help them survive. On golf courses the only difference is it is mown by machines and not grazed.
The problem as I see it, is really the last one you touch on which expectations. People expect a certain type of conditioning but as with all things expectations can be changed. I find your apparent outright rejection of any other alternative to chemicals somewhat sad, narrow minded and indicative of the problem that golf seems to face.
Richard, looking and accepting that there might be other methods and ways does not invalidate your point of view that chemicals are the best way to create the required conditions. Your utter rejection of another way than the one that you are pushing indicates a lack of balanced allround understanding of the possibilities and therefor reduces the weight that your point of view carries.
Jon
My concern is that uninformed people will get the idea that a completely organic golf course is entirely practical in each and every situation, and that supers who don't go that route are either ignorant or apathetic, and every synthetic product is damaging to the environment, no matter how it is applied, all of which is demonstrably false.
This discussion should be overlapped with the Poa Annua to Bentgrass Conversion thread, where people are advocating fumigation with methyl bromide. In my view, of all the chemicals used on golf courses today, MeBr is the single worst environmental offender, contributing to the depletion of the ozone layer. Folks over on that thread are speaking of it as casually as if it were a fertilizer application.
Jon,
I am still curious about where you are located? What are the environmental conditions that you are dealing with?
Bradley,
yes I can see your point and I am in no way saying that its a one size fits all sort of thing. I would firstly say that I do not have any experience of warm season grasses except a little bemuda that used to grow wild on a course I worked on in switzerland but this was not really in play.
I do however feel that if you are spraying preventative fungicides then you will have an issue with excessive moisture in the rootzone/thatch/leaf and if you irrigate on top of this then you compound the problem. I would imagine that many courses need to irrigate to retain the colour and probably the grass. This to me is a case of setting the wrong goals for the sward coupled with probable poor grass selection but only if you are looking for low/no chemical input.
If you put a person on antibiotics 24/7 what would happen? and why don't doctors do this but many in the turfgrass industry think it is okay?
Jon
Grass does die from a lack of water. I've seen it happen.
Grass does die from disease. I've personally witnessed that, too.
When grass dies on a golf course, what your left with is bare dirt. In the best of circumstances there are a lot of irate golfers, and at the worst the unemployment line.
It's real easy to talk the talk, it's quite another to hold down a job and manage a successful career.
I was watching the evening news last night, and they did a topic on environmental pollution. One statistic especially stood out to me: there are over 80,000 chemicals that we are exposed to (in the form of pesticides, industrial pollution, CO2 emmissions from cars, cosmetics, etc.), but only about 200 of them have been tested to ensure that they are safe (won't cause cancer, dementia, etc.). It made me think about all the chemicals that are used to maintain golf courses, and whether any golf courses exist out there that are all-natural (ie organic)? Is anyone aware of a course that doesn't use chemical pesticides, or takes a stance on at least greatly minimizing their use of chemicals? Are the courses in better or worse shape?
Jon,
Yesterday we had temperature in the mid-80s. With combined effects of wind, humidity, solar radiation and temperature our evapotranspiration rates for the day were in excess of two tenths of an inch of moisture. Today we are forecasting a quarter of an inch of ET. So I watered last night.
My greens were spriged with vegatative bents in the 1920's. Vegatative bents were bred to produce 5 leaves per shoot when maintained at 3/8's on an inch. But we are mowing them at under 1/8th of an inch. At that level those grasses maybe produce 2 or 3 leaves per shoot. They are stressed beyond the limits of tolerance. So Poa annua has replaced those grasses - Poa annua can manage well under those heights of cut.
But as you know, Poa annua isn't going to handle these temperatures without some water replenishment.
In either case, all we are doing with irrigation is maintaining a level of moisture that maybe isn't even as high as what you have on any given day of your season, owing to the fact that your ET rates are not nearly so far in excess of your natural rainfall.
And our fungicides are not in response to irrigation, but to humidity. If it was purely an irrigation causality, then why do we see the same pathogens in the rough, where we don't even water?
I was watching the evening news last night, and they did a topic on environmental pollution. One statistic especially stood out to me: there are over 80,000 chemicals that we are exposed to (in the form of pesticides, industrial pollution, CO2 emmissions from cars, cosmetics, etc.), but only about 200 of them have been tested to ensure that they are safe (won't cause cancer, dementia, etc.). It made me think about all the chemicals that are used to maintain golf courses, and whether any golf courses exist out there that are all-natural (ie organic)? Is anyone aware of a course that doesn't use chemical pesticides, or takes a stance on at least greatly minimizing their use of chemicals? Are the courses in better or worse shape?
p.s. maybe Bob would have been better getting high on magic mushrooms being as they are more organic!!!Jon,
Yesterday we had temperature in the mid-80s. With combined effects of wind, humidity, solar radiation and temperature our evapotranspiration rates for the day were in excess of two tenths of an inch of moisture. Today we are forecasting a quarter of an inch of ET. So I watered last night.
My greens were spriged with vegatative bents in the 1920's. Vegatative bents were bred to produce 5 leaves per shoot when maintained at 3/8's on an inch. But we are mowing them at under 1/8th of an inch. At that level those grasses maybe produce 2 or 3 leaves per shoot. They are stressed beyond the limits of tolerance. So Poa annua has replaced those grasses - Poa annua can manage well under those heights of cut.
But as you know, Poa annua isn't going to handle these temperatures without some water replenishment.
In either case, all we are doing with irrigation is maintaining a level of moisture that maybe isn't even as high as what you have on any given day of your season, owing to the fact that your ET rates are not nearly so far in excess of your natural rainfall.
And our fungicides are not in response to irrigation, but to humidity. If it was purely an irrigation causality, then why do we see the same pathogens in the rough, where we don't even water?
Bradley,
reread the original post. What we are dicussing here is is it possible to have a chemical free course and NOT why are you not maintaining your course in a chemical free manner. I am not attacking you nor requiring you to justify you reasons. As you say you lost the original sward through cutting it to short. I am sure this was as a result of demands from members/players and not a greenkeeping decision. The expectations of the golfer is probably the biggest thing in the way of chemical reduction.
What would be interesting would be to hear your ideas on how you might be able to maintain a course in your present climate chemical free if no restrictions of expectation were placed on you. I do not believe water is counted as chemical so you could keep the irrigation ;)
Jon
Jon
Jon,
Your profile picture is of a guy who made a religion out of living in a chemical induced state of mind, and you are all over my ass for spraying Daconil at 2 oz per thousand square feet every 10 days or so? Give me a friggin break!
If you had the humidity and temperatures that we have here, you would get the same diseases we get. And you would either adapt or loose your job. There are biological alternatives to chemicals, and I will be first to use them, but not until the carbon footprint of those products is less than what I use now. Do you have any idea how much product, manhours, and fuel it takes for the biological products to control disease?
You know something Jon, I have never once read one example, in any media, where an American superintendent was critical of the European methods of greenkeeping. Not once.
Ian,
there are many different types of people reading this site and some of them are quite young. The langauge you and Brad have used in the last few posts is appalling. Would you use such langauge when talking to a 9 year old child or one of your members? I would hope not and you would both be well advised to think again before using such langauge in future. It is a shame because your posts are very often informative and a good read.
Brad,
maybe I chose this picture because I like his music. What does yours say about you?
I have at no time made any negative remarks about american greenkeepers or their methods. I simply asked you a simple question and judging by the manner of your response you obviously do not have any worthwhile comment or answers on it. One thing I can say is that you are thankfully not typical of the american greenkeepers I have had the fortune to meet as they have been both knowledgable and courteous where as you are quite plainly neither
Jon
I am personally finding this thread fascinating and very happy to learn more about things that supers do.
However, I really don't think anyone needs to bring up useless "fact" about how "only 200" chemicals have been tested safe. That is like saying only 200 food recipes have been tested safe while there are hundreds of thousands of food recipes that have never been proven safe. Does that mean that you should never try new food recipes or go to new restaurants? Of course not.
The fact is most "chemicals" are derivatives of natural products (like OIL! It is NATURAL! Mercury is natural too!). They usually don't have to be tested to be safe because most of the ingredients have already been proven safe in typical usage. Just because they get mixed with different ingredients and become a "new" chemical, does not necessarily mean they are harmful and toxic. It does not mean that they are proven safe, but they are not proven to be harmful to humans in typcial quantities either. So let's go easy on the fearmongering, please.
Ian, I am a certified flaming liberal, and my friends would be pretty amused to find that anyone would label me as a Rush listener.
However, I do have engineering background and took several levels of chemistry courses including organic chemistry and materials engineering courses, so I think I have at least a decent understanding of the processes involved.
Cooking is really a chemistry experiment. You are mixing different ingredients and changing their chemical structure either through applying heat or through chemical reactions. If you are saying that every recombination of known chemical ingredients must be tested for safety, you should start with every food recipe out there as they are changing chemical compounds in a totally new manner. At least we don't ingest herbicides directly like we do with food.
Richard, I think you will find that most food products are tested before being released on to the market. Also you argument seems to be if it is a naturally occuring substance then it is okay but this is not the case and this is why there are varying bands of toxicity with pesticides. The question you should address is not are the parts of this substance naturally occuring but rwther would you find them in this particular place and in these quantaties
Just because you are mixing inorganics instead of organics does not mean that every combination of known ingredient is somehow going to be extra toxic. And there is no scientific ways to find out anything is completely safe, many chemical compounds that were originally thought to be safe turned out to be harmful in certain combinations or over a very long time.
For all you know that steak you are eating is FAR more harmful than any residue herbicide you are going to ingest. You have no proof to say either way.
Again flawed thinking. There are several herbicide residues that are going to be considerably more harmful to you than the average steak. The reason why it is required that any person applying chemicals on a golf course wears a protective barrier is because of the possible side affects from contact or repeated contact with these substances
So, let's stop with the fear-mongering. It doesn't help anyone.
No, it does not. At the same time it seems to me wise to always be open to ideas and ways which may lessen the impact of what you do
Ian,
there are many different types of people reading this site and some of them are quite young. The langauge you and Brad have used in the last few posts is appalling. Would you use such langauge when talking to a 9 year old child or one of your members? I would hope not and you would both be well advised to think again before using such langauge in future. It is a shame because your posts are very often informative and a good read.
Jon
Jon,
You're right. Its been edited to PG rated. It was the 18 year scotch that fueled me into the wee hours of the morning writing about something im passionate about.
Richard, I think you will find that most food products are tested before being released on to the market. Also you argument seems to be if it is a naturally occuring substance then it is okay but this is not the case and this is why there are varying bands of toxicity with pesticides. The question you should address is not are the parts of this substance naturally occuring but rwther would you find them in this particular place and in these quantaties
Again flawed thinking. There are several herbicide residues that are going to be considerably more harmful to you than the average steak. The reason why it is required that any person applying chemicals on a golf course wears a protective barrier is because of the possible side affects from contact or repeated contact with these substances
Jon,
The other thing that I would add is that this is not the forum to provoke your fellow superintendents into justifying their management practices. Certainly you are aware that there are superintendent forums like turfnet etc? I don't know what you hope to accomplish by all these questions?
Jon,
Are you a golf course owner-operator?
I mean. What exactly is the stance you're taking or what is your point with debating against this? Are you saying that the pesticides you use and how you use them are completely safe to you, your families and the environment?
The reason bees are always on every exam is because of their vital importance to the food chain. They're pollinators. Bees pollinate 80% of all of our flowering crops which make up 1/3 of everything we eat. Thats also why bees and the toxicity levels to them are always included on MSDS sheets.
So the next time you notice a pattern of dead bees lying on the ground on your golf course its because of the bees ingesting or coming in contact with all the pesticide residues on the turf.
I mean. What exactly is the stance you're taking or what is your point with debating against this? Are you saying that the pesticides you use and how you use them are completely safe to you, your families and the environment?
No, I believe what people are sayiing is that NOTHING is completely safe to use, and no one has put forward any evidence that the current usage of pesticide is harmful to families and environment. Where is your evidence that substituting organic method is much safer?The reason bees are always on every exam is because of their vital importance to the food chain. They're pollinators. Bees pollinate 80% of all of our flowering crops which make up 1/3 of everything we eat. Thats also why bees and the toxicity levels to them are always included on MSDS sheets.
So the next time you notice a pattern of dead bees lying on the ground on your golf course its because of the bees ingesting or coming in contact with all the pesticide residues on the turf.
Again, you are just throwing stuff out there with absolutely no scientific evidence. First, bees die all the time. We have no idea whether or not there were more deaths than nonrmal where you worked. Second, even if there were, you have no idea whether or not they are related to the herbicide use. Correlation DOES NOT EQUAL causal - that is science 101.
Recently, there was a MASSIVE bee dieoff. People blamed pollution right away. There were many TV programs and magazine article accusing pesticide and herbicide use for the dieoff. Turned out it was caused by virus. Until you do full scientific research, people guessing and putting out poor conjectures do more harm than good.
Seriously, all this environmental mumbo jumbo is embarrassing. I am not saying pesticide is completely safe or denying that it is possible that they are harming fish and ecosystem in general, but you have absolutely NO EVIDENCE other than your "feel".
That is not how science works. For all we know, the latest organic methods are doing more harm than good.
Again, only proven methods are to use least amount of whatever possible. Whether or not it is organic or synthetic. Just bashing people for using any pesticide at all is not at all constructive.
Bradley,
If you were directed to reduce your current total budget by 20%, how much would you cut from the chemical and fertilizer line item?
The thing about expectations is they can be changed through education.
Bradley,
I am happy for you that you are the person who decides what you do at the course where you work. Do you spray you roughs with fungicides?
Jon
And our fungicides are not in response to irrigation, but to humidity. If it was purely an irrigation causality, then why do we see the same pathogens in the rough, where we don't even water?
Bradley,
You do realize that your retort sounds as if chemical and fertilizers are saving our waterways from deadly soil erosion.
What's your opinion on organic food?
Jon,
Let me respond to your statements below.
“All plants and animals become ill from time to time but in most cases they recover and thrive without any medication. It is only when occasionally that turf grass dies from a disease if it is in a comfortable environment and in such cases you might have to act before it becomes to wide spread.”
I don’t know what it is like in Inverness Scotland, but in most parts of America, the disease dollar spot in particular, attacks turf when the humidity and temperatures reach a certain threshold. A big factor in the growth of this pathogen is dew formation. When the combined air and humidity readings set the turf up to be covered in a heavy dew, for many hours all through the night to late morning hours, the pathogen naturally begins to grow in that environment.
We get the dew which occasionally can last all day but not that much humidity. In Switzerland where I was before moving to Scotland we had both through the main summer months.
Dollar spot is generally worse on greens tees and fairways. Because we are providing a good ball roll and lie - there are simply more leaf blades per square inch in golf course turf, thus a much heavier dew formation.
maybe more leaf blades per square inch but not really more leaf area depending on the grass type
Let me emphasize that modern American green keeping practices did not provoke dollar spot. If you go back to the very earliest American green keeping periodicals you will read of a disease that they referred to as “small brown patch”. They would later distinguish this from large brown patch, and give it the name dollar spot – owing to the fact that it is about the same size as a silver dollar. This disease was prevalent on American golf courses from the very beginning. And in those days, as you might guess, they were much more organic in their approach than we are today. They did not have nearly as many synthetic compounds. And they certainly did not over-stress the turf by cutting it too short, nor were they capable of overwatering given the small irrigation systems of those days. But they had serious dollar spot problems long before chemicals.
Agreed
Dollar spot is not like a cold or the flu that happens from time to time as you put it. Dollar spot is not a pathological epidemic that you quarantine at one golf course to keep it from spreading to another. Dollar spot happens every where, and every time that the environmental conditions trigger it. If you had our conditions it would happen on your golf course too.
maybe I have worked in such conditions as you describe, you don't know.
Some superintendents spray preventatively for dollar spot, but only after they have learned from experience that they will use less chemical in a year from following a preventative schedule, than they do with a curative schedule. You are aware, are you not, that curative rates of fungicides are generally twice as high as preventative rates? higher, yes how much depends on what and for what but agreed
Some superintendents have learned from experience that a pre-emptive fungicide application will knock down the population of spores early in the year, so that they may go longer between spray intervals and follow more of a curative approach through the remainder of the year.
I am very fortunate that my 18th fairway develops dollar spot two days before the other areas on my golf course. So I can wait until I see it there and then spray. Then we let it go until we see it flare up again on 18 fairway. The reason why 18 fairway gets it first is because we mow that fairway last and subsequently the dew stays on there longer than any other fairway, hence more time for the disease to develop. We call 18 fairway our indicator area.
“This thread is about chemical free courses and how it might be possible to do it. Brad has chosen to add very little to the topic and consistently said it is impossible.”
This is unfair -I have given one example of a way to reduce and possibly eliminate the use of chemicals for pythium. Also I have shared my experimentation with Civitas, a mineral compound that is showing control of disease. I also have shared a way to control grubs without adversely effecting pollinators. All you have contributed to this subject are pious platitudes.
maybe you need to read your first responses where very little was forth coming. Even with the later responses have been weighted against the topic of this thread. It was an interesting read on Civitas
“Brad used the example of pathogens in the rough to throw attention away from the fact that most fungus based diseases are water related. As any green keeper worth his salt knows you find these pathogens all over the course and they only become a problem when they become epidemic. So why does he need to spray to prevent disease ruining his green which he waters but not the rough which he doesn't water? It can't be the humidity because it will be humid in both places. Height of cut will be a factor if he cuts lower than the grasses comfort point.”
My only reason for even bringing the rough into this argument was to demonstrate that irrigation is not the causal factor of pathogens because we find the same pathogens in the rough. As pointed out this is obvious they are found all over but you don't see many courses losing there entire rough to dollar spot. Now why is that?I might have added that it is not as problematic in the rough as it is on greens or fairways. I mean you don’t putt in the roughobvious statement but what are you getting at? I mean you don't putt on the fairway generally and yet they can have disease issues too. It is not as severe in the rough, probably because the dew isn't as heavy there where the grass blades are less dense? probably? why not look into it more indepth so you can drop the probably. And the rough is not the aesthetic focal point of the golf hole. So its not necessary to treat the rough.
“This must be discounted as Brad is not influenced by outside people…..”
There is an prevailing sentiment on GCA that blames the greenkeepers, at least in part, for not standing up to the pressure to provide Augusta green Some have even suggested that we are being bought out or bribed by agri-chemical companiesI have not found this to be the case though maybe the odd one has said said bribery most posters here have a great deal of respect for greenkeepers. I think most people realise it is golfers expectations and standing up against the membership/club has cost more than one greenkeeper their job. You however made the comment in an earlier post that you didn't have to listen to what players said hence my comment. . And yet, most American greenkeepers are in fact following their own agronomic regimens without outside influence or pressure. I would add that most are following a plan that is economically judicious and good for the game and the environment. I will go at it hammer and tong with anyone who wants to challenge me on that one.I would be suprised if this were not the case. As I have stated in a previous reply all the American greenkeepers that I have had dealings with until our spat have been very knowledgable and well courteous
“…………and no decent green keeper stresses his sward unnecessarily all the time.”
I would clarify that for good playability you have to keep the turf on the lean and dry side of its limits of tolerance. But there are diminishing returns to how far you can push that. agreed. How far you can puh it depends especially on the amount of traffic, playing area and of course weather
“It can't be too much fertiliser as though as he has already said this has been cut back. So why does he think that if he does not spray every 10 days or so he will sustain considerable damage to his greens?”
No I said that we have all cut back from the amounts of fertilizers that were being applied to golf courses in the past. That was a general statement about our profession in response to a question about cutting expenses. I was attempting to explain that many of us would be cutting in to muscle if we cut back any further than we have already.Reread and agreed, sorry :-\
“I have to say that I don't care about what Brad does at his course. My real issue with Brad is that when you say something that does not fit into his little vision of the world he belittles and attacks you with the attitude of 'I am SUPER BRAD'”
Super Brad is a nickname that the golf pro gave me here. It’s a joke. As far as attacking you goes, I think that I have responded to you in exactly the way a radical should be responded to. Yes Brad it is a joke. You were the first to make an unprovoked, ill tempered and paranoid attack on me, not the other way around. How am I radical based on my posts up to that attack? I am sorry but you do seem to have issues on people who don't hold the same view as yourself and there is a hint of europhobia in there to.
“………and I know what I think is right, if you don't agree with it you are wrong. He deliberately misinterprets what is said, ignores questions that he can not answer without contradicting himself and tries to mislead people with arguments such as pathogens in the rough knowing that many people on this site do not have the knowledge to read the situation correctly.”
Jon just because something is odd compared to your experience, doesn’t mean that it is a contradiction I am saying this about you not disagreeing with what you say.
“In a situation where some thing is being put forward that is obviously wrong isn't it correct that such should be challenged?”
Jon, you are basically challenging the way green keeping is being executed in my part of the world no I am not and it is poor form from you trying to turn this into an us and them. . I have no doubt that in your part of the world you are dealing with issues that we do not understand here, and so you will never hear me asking you to justify your methods. I have stated that in America we do not spray either when our conditions are like the ones that you work in every day. I don’t know what else I can say.
One potential net effect is to shove the chemicals towards another back yard. Organic only courses stand to use more seed and sod which unless specified otherwise, will have been treated with chemicals.
Steve
This is a consistant point regarding the issue. I have never heard a response.
Jon, yes, I am chasing you through the internet.
Your approach is no doubt servicable in some situations, say, members clubs without high expectations in cool climates. Have you worked anywhere else?
I question how well this approach would succeed, for example, in a warm-season resort area, with extreme insect and weed pressure, high customer expectations, and where you don't have time to explain your philosophy to a couple of hundred tourists every day, but you do have a general manager and marketing people breathing down your neck every minute to make it green and perfect and do it now because that's what the public expects.
I am just growing in my latest course at the moment (seeded last May) and have not used any chemicals to date including fertilisers. This is without an irrigation system. I suspect I will have to use a herbicide at some point if the clover gets out of hand though.
Jon
Alan,
Just north of Inverness, Scotland. Growing grass without chemicals is not the holy grail as you seem to think, there are plenty of examples of this but does depend on your situation as Steve has stated.
Jon, yes, I am chasing you through the internet.
Your approach is no doubt servicable in some situations, say, members clubs without high expectations in cool climates. Have you worked anywhere else?
I question how well this approach would succeed, for example, in a warm-season resort area, with extreme insect and weed pressure, high customer expectations, and where you don't have time to explain your philosophy to a couple of hundred tourists every day, but you do have a general manager and marketing people breathing down your neck every minute to make it green and perfect and do it now because that's what the public expects.
Steve,
Hope the New Year has been kind to you so far. As to your questions, warm season grasses are not my forte so I could not say one way or the other there nor would I like to make any comments on climates with high humidity. It is possible to produce very high standard playing conditions without chemicals so the ‘members clubs without high expectations’ jibe is off the mark. I also know that it is possible to go practically chemical free in a warm but dry climate.
Explaining the maintenance philosophy does not have to entail talking to each golfer there are many ways to communicate though if you are poor at this then having the general manager and marketing people breathing down your neck every minute is almost a certainty.
If you have lots of players then you will need sufficient playing areas for it to work. I am not saying it is the always possible, only that it is possible.
Kelly,
I am just growing in my latest course at the moment (seeded last May) and have not used any chemicals to date including fertilisers. This is without an irrigation system. I suspect I will have to use a herbicide at some point if the clover gets out of hand though.
Jon
Alan,
this might come across a little stronger than I intend it to and if so I apologise in advance.
The problem with your last reply is that it is not based on what was said but rather based on statements altered/invented by you to suit your argument. I dislike it when someone deliberately misquotes to suit their POV. Where did I ever say it was 'easy'. Also Steve did not mention anything about the USA in his original post to which I replied.
I find it is a shame you should chose to use this type of argument as it cheapens what is a valid point of view.
Steve also goes on to mention that organic courses will use seed and sod but so do most courses using chemicals. I concur with him that if they buy this in then it will have probably been handled with chemicals at some stage so with sod the obvious thing is to home grow and maybe even the seed can be home produced (intensive but not impossible if needed on a small scale).
Jon