News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


Matt Langan

Chemical-Free Courses?
« on: May 07, 2010, 11:40:31 AM »
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?




Matt Langan

Re: Chemical-Free Courses?
« Reply #1 on: May 07, 2010, 12:42:21 PM »
For those who are interested (perhaps the inactivity on this thread indicates I am the only one...), here is a course that seems to be particularly environmentally conscious: The Vineyard Golf Club:
http://www.vineyardgolf.com/default.aspx?p=CourseHole&vnf=1&ssid=69164&view=&crsID=962&hole=1

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Chemical-Free Courses?
« Reply #2 on: May 07, 2010, 12:47:08 PM »
I believe that's the one I knew about. Featured in a GD article a couple of years ago.
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

Matt Langan

Re: Chemical-Free Courses?
« Reply #3 on: May 07, 2010, 01:24:12 PM »
Here's an article I found online about the course/topic. http://www.mvtimes.com/2008/06/26/news/vineyard-golf-club.php

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.

Brad Tufts

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Chemical-Free Courses?
« Reply #4 on: May 07, 2010, 01:27:55 PM »
VGC is pretty interesting/different.

They greet you at the course and take your shoes so they can zap them free of chemicals or foreign seed.

I didn't notice any "conditioning sacrifice" there...but it would not have looked out of place with the UK-Donald Steel feel of the place.
So I jump ship in Hong Kong....

George_Williams

Re: Chemical-Free Courses?
« Reply #5 on: May 07, 2010, 04:34:55 PM »
Try Applewood GC in Golden, Colorado.  Built over the aquifer that supplies water to the nearby Coors brewery, so, of course they can only use all organic/natural inputs.  Was an article on it in Golf Course Management (the GCSAA monthly) a few years back after we finished a renovation/conversion there...

Jon Wiggett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Chemical-Free Courses?
« Reply #6 on: May 07, 2010, 04:40:18 PM »
Hi Matt,

I don't use pesticides or fungicides but will use the occasional herbicide to control clover which is impossible to reduce to an acceptable level without chemicals. Use only organic plus no irrigation.

Jon

Matt Langan

Re: Chemical-Free Courses?
« Reply #7 on: May 07, 2010, 05:04:05 PM »
Are you the exception to the rule, Jon? I would be interested to know whether it is more/less cost-effective...

Jon Wiggett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Chemical-Free Courses?
« Reply #8 on: May 08, 2010, 06:13:52 AM »
Matt,

I am in the fortunate position of being owner, committee, head greenkeeper,etc. all in one. I make the decisions and the buck stops with me (hope the trouble and strife doesn't see this ;D).

To answer your question there are quite alot of courses that are forced into a low chemical root through finance or lack of it. Also I think there are many course managers and others in the golf industry here in the UK that would like to go down the chemical light root but don't because of the perceived demand from the golfer (though I feel that many golfers are happy to have more natural looking swards if the price is right). For me it is an ideological decision and I hope long term to be totally selfsufficient nothing coming in or going out.

It is certainly cheaper if you do not count the man hours. However, looking at the total budget including wages I doubt there is a great difference assuming you use chemicals only when needed. There are endless arguments on both sides of this fence but I believe that you end up with a more diverse and robust sward than you do if you use irrigation except for last resort or chemicals as a preventative messure or for less than significant desease problems.

As I said I could see me using a herbicide to eliminate clove.

Hope this answers your question,

Jon

Ian Andrew

Re: Chemical-Free Courses?
« Reply #9 on: May 08, 2010, 08:44:39 AM »
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. :)

« Last Edit: May 08, 2010, 08:47:19 AM by Ian Andrew »

Forrest Richardson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Chemical-Free Courses?
« Reply #10 on: May 08, 2010, 10:56:54 AM »
It is coming — in two forms:

1.  Will be courses that use agents, but these agents are 100% organic and not chemicals in the sense of what we have come to know in golf. For example, our office has been working with a firm in California who produces a series of compounds that are not classified as pest agents or herbicides, yet produce similar results. There is a lot of this happening, but not so much in golf. In San Francisco, for example, the City has been brewing organic "tea" for many years at its parks and golf facilities to stimulate growth and control certain fungus.

2.  Will be courses where nothing is applied at all. Management is shifted to other forms of control. One of the best examples is Värpinge Golf Course in Lund, Sweden.   http://www.varpingegolfbana.se/default.asp?id=79&sub=1&l=2   Sheep control most of the higher grass issues (deep roughs) and composting is a daily routine that produces byproducs used to manage various areas. Instead of applications of agents, Värpinge shifts its energy to more verticutting, etc. to control weeds and unwanted growth trends.

« Last Edit: May 08, 2010, 10:58:52 AM by Forrest Richardson »
— Forrest Richardson, Golf Course Architect/ASGCA
    www.golfgroupltd.com
    www.golframes.com

JSPayne

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Chemical-Free Courses?
« Reply #11 on: May 09, 2010, 12:29:59 AM »
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

"To be nobody but yourself in a world which is doing it's best, night and day, to make you everybody else means to fight the hardest battle any human being can fight; and never stop fighting." -E.E. Cummings

Jon Wiggett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Chemical-Free Courses?
« Reply #12 on: May 09, 2010, 02:33:12 AM »
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

Steve Okula

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Chemical-Free Courses?
« Reply #13 on: May 09, 2010, 03:31:19 AM »
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

Jon,

What is your experience managing snow mold under a five month snow cover?

I am always sceptical of people who dismiss scientific research when it contradicts their preconceived notions.
The small wheel turns by the fire and rod,
the big wheel turns by the grace of God.

Steve Okula

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Chemical-Free Courses?
« Reply #14 on: May 09, 2010, 03:52:23 AM »
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



Here's a link to an article on Squaw Creek.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4031/is_200210/ai_n9094451/

While Squaw Creek commendably keeps pesticides to a minimum, the superintendent does admit to applying at least two herbicides and a synthetic fertilizer.

What's more, they say they regularly buy sod, $30,000 worth in the year of the report. Presumably, the sod was grown at a nursery that does use chemicals. In my view, a golf course that claims to be chemical free yet imports conventionally grown sod relinquishes their right to the claim.

It's heresay, but I have heard from a third source that the Martha Vineyards course does the same thing, buying conventionally grown sod to replace turf that is damaged beyond salvation by insect, diseases, or weeds. But again, that's rumor.

I have first hand reports that in Denmark, where there is in place a total ban of golf course pesticides, it has only shifted the spray programs to under the counter.
The small wheel turns by the fire and rod,
the big wheel turns by the grace of God.

Anthony_Nysse

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Chemical-Free Courses?
« Reply #15 on: May 09, 2010, 05:56:24 AM »
 Sod companies are trying to grow in new turf to replace the old turf as quickly as possible. This requires fertilizers...lots of fertilizers. The "non chemical" turf that is being replaced on the golf courses are  insect invested and weak. One cannot replace weak turf with weak sod. I cannot think of ANY sod company that would try to be chemical free, so courses that are chemical free do not have any options, unless they ar growing their own sod. I do not think that a course "relinquishes their right to the claim" when thats their only option.
Anthony J. Nysse
Director of Golf Courses & Grounds
Apogee Club
Hobe Sound, FL

Jon Wiggett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Chemical-Free Courses?
« Reply #16 on: May 09, 2010, 06:11:32 AM »
Steve,

I worked in Switzerland for 15 years where two of the courses I worked at were in the Alps and covered with snow for this length of time. If the green is properly prepared (i.e.no surplus nutrients and dry) then there is no reason why a sward based on native grasses and/or some carefully selected non-native will not come out in spring in a good and in general desease free state.

As to your comment on Denmark I am not sure that the ban on chemicals has led to a wholesale move into the criminal world by greenkeepers as you claim. Maybe Chris Haspell, who is a poster on this site and spent many years in Denmark will beable to give some clearer views on this matter.

Jon

Steve Okula

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Chemical-Free Courses?
« Reply #17 on: May 09, 2010, 06:57:36 AM »
Nobody wants to spray chemicls. Treatments are expensive, time consuming, messy, and unpleasant, and if not done correctly they are possibly dangerous for people, the environment, and even the desirable turf species. The bitter ruth is that the average supeintendent today cannot meet players' expectations with organics alone.

My concern is that because there may be a very few courses trying to go strictly organic, and maybe having some success, the general public will interpret that to mean that the other 99.9% of the courses relying on conventional maintenance do so out of ignorance or apathy. 

Jon, what are you talking about when you say, "native grasses"? What are the native grasses in Switzerland? Can Poa annua be a native grass?

Anthony, my point about buying sod is that if the organically managed golf courses are losing turf because they don't use pesticides, (such an evil-sounding word, can I say "plant protectants" instead?), but if they can't hold their turf organically, and they are buying sod from an outside producer that does use synthetic fertilizers and plant protectants, then the golf course isn't really helping the environment, are they? They are simply shifting the chemical use to another site.

You can't say all chemicals are bad. They do not all have a negative impact on the environment, but there are some truly pernicious ones. For example, and for what it's worth, I have long argued against the use of methyl bromide soil sterilant on golf courses or anywhere else due to its harmful effect on the ozone layer. My words have fallen mostly on deaf ears in the GCSAA and even with some folks on this site.
The small wheel turns by the fire and rod,
the big wheel turns by the grace of God.

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +1/-1
Re: Chemical-Free Courses?
« Reply #18 on: May 09, 2010, 11:26:19 AM »
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.

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.

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Chemical-Free Courses?
« Reply #19 on: May 09, 2010, 11:45:52 AM »
Tom Doak,

Do you agree with GEO that the environmental issues are "standard" worldwide, or do you think each region has unique environmental issues, so the process should be kept local?  Do you believe that generally, communities are intelligent enough to decides such things for themselves, or do you think they need some "expert" group in England overseeing their decisions and setting guidelines for them?

Matt,

You have gotten some good answers and rescources to answer your original question.  MHO right now is that organic is not really feasible at this time, but improving.  At the same time, I am not 100% sure that organic is necessarily a better way to go.  To expand what Tom said, with a synthetic fertilzer it takes from 2-10 ilbs of material to put down 1 lb of N.  Cow manure requires 17 lbls to get a pound of N, and that other 16 lbs ain't no real environmental bargain.

I also question, but don't really know, that only 200 chemicals have been tested for dangers.  While golf is not above soft pedaling its environmental impacts, enviro groups and media have been guilty of the over stating facts to make the point as well.  Only 200 just doesn't seem right, but as always,I could be wrong.
« Last Edit: May 09, 2010, 11:51:09 AM by Jeff_Brauer »
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Adam Lawrence

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Chemical-Free Courses?
« Reply #20 on: May 09, 2010, 11:48:59 AM »
Jeff - I'm sure Jonathan Smith, the chief executive of GEO, a very proud Scot, would take great exception to being called English!
Adam Lawrence

Editor, Golf Course Architecture
www.golfcoursearchitecture.net

Principal, Oxford Golf Consulting
www.oxfordgolfconsulting.com

Author, 'More Enduring Than Brass: a biography of Harry Colt' (forthcoming).

Short words are best, and the old words, when short, are the best of all.

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +1/-1
Re: Chemical-Free Courses?
« Reply #21 on: May 09, 2010, 01:15:48 PM »
Jeff:

Certainly, environmental considerations differ from place to place ... but so do politics.  To me, leaving environmental concerns in the hands of the locals allows for all sorts of non-scientific b.s. to be introduced at public hearings, and decision-making on the basis of fear.  Surely you have seen that before at a public hearing ... thankfully, it's been a while for me.

I think one of the main benefits of GEO's involvement is that they might well be able to boil down the process to the things that really matter, so we can address those for real, instead of just hoping that nobody brings them up.

The bottom line is that an environmental organization based in North Berwick has to be a net positive for golf.  Their presentation in St. Andrews in March was excellent and I am surprised [but not shocked] to hear that there is pushback from the American contingent.

Anthony_Nysse

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Chemical-Free Courses?
« Reply #22 on: May 09, 2010, 01:21:25 PM »
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.

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.
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.
Anthony J. Nysse
Director of Golf Courses & Grounds
Apogee Club
Hobe Sound, FL

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +1/-1
Re: Chemical-Free Courses?
« Reply #23 on: May 09, 2010, 01:26:39 PM »
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.

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.
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.

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.

Jon Wiggett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Chemical-Free Courses?
« Reply #24 on: May 09, 2010, 01:50:17 PM »
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

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back