News:

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


Anthony_Nysse

  • Karma: +0/-0
Something of note.....

http://www.peconicestuary.org/News.Golf.html

East End Long Island Golf Courses Pledge to Reduce Fertilizer Use
88% Take Innovative Challenge From EPA, New York State
and Other Public-Private Partners
September 22, 2004
NEW YORK -- More than 88 percent of the golf courses on the east end of Long Island have accepted a challenge from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and its government and private partners to protect the health of the Peconic Estuary and other local waters by reducing their use of fertilizers. This is the first time that a group of golf courses in one geographic area of the country have voluntarily agreed to better manage their fertilizer use to limit the amount of nitrogen that enters ground water, ultimately winding up in rivers, streams and the estuary. Thirty of the thirty-four East End public and private golf courses are participating in the program.

In May 2003, EPA teamed up with the United States Golf Association (USGA), Cornell University, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), the Suffolk County Health Department, the Peconic Estuary Program's Citizen's Advisory Committee and the East End Golf Course Superintendents to create the East End Nitrogen Management Challenge for Golf Courses.

"This is the first time that a large segment of the golf industry in one area has voluntarily come together to reduce fertilizer use and the nitrogen it produces to protect the future of our estuaries," said EPA Regional Administrator Jane M. Kenny. "The protection and restoration of coastal waters requires everyone to do his or her part, and the golf courses of eastern Long Island are certainly setting a laudable example."

Through the Challenge, the USGA and Cornell are providing technical assistance to participating public and private golf courses, enabling each course to better manage its fertilizer use. The goal is for each golf course to limit its contribution of nitrogen to ground water to 2 mg/l total nitrogen -- less than half the level resulting from typical residential development. The golf courses have agreed to develop comprehensive nitrogen management plans that will be evaluated annually. Sprinklers and rain cause excess nitrogen from fertilizers to enter ground water and run off into rivers, lakes, streams and the ocean. Nitrogen in the water can cause too much algae to grow, which in turn uses up the oxygen needed by fish to survive.

"The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation is pleased to have played a role in the development and implementation of the Peconic Estuary Nitrogen Management Challenge," said NYSDEC Commissioner Erin Crotty. "This voluntary program for public and private golf courses demonstrates the ability of many different partners to get together to develop a sustainable initiative to reduce nitrogen loading to the Peconic Estuary and protect the valuable resources of the state."

Industry cooperation has been commendable. To date, the courses that have agreed to participate are:

Atlantic Golf Club
Bridgehampton Club
Calverton Links
Cedars Golf Club
East Hampton Golf Club
Fox Hill Golf Club
Friar’s Head
Gardiners Bay Country Club
Goat Hill at Shelter Island Country Club
Great Rock Golf Club
Hampton Hills Golf Club
Indian Island Golf Course
Islands End Golf Club
Laurel Links Country Club
Long Island National Club
Maidstone Club
Montauk Downs
National Golf Links of America
North Fork Country Club
Noyac Golf Club
Old Vine Country Club
Pine Hills Country Club
Poxabogue Golf Course
Quogue Field Club
Rock Hill Golf Club
Sag Harbor Golf Club
Shinnecock Hills Golf Club
South Fork Country Club
Southampton Golf Club
The Bridge
Westhampton Country Club

Here's what other Challenge partners have to say about this precedent-setting program:

"As the grandson of a local bayman, I grew up swimming, fishing and clamming in the surrounding waters and I have personally witnessed the decline in water quality of our bays. Becoming involved with the Peconic Estuary Program gave me the opportunity to represent golf course superintendents in the effort to clean up and protect the surrounding marine environment. It is my hope that through this cooperative agreement, the sophisticated nitrogen management strategies developed by superintendents will be recognized and adopted for use in other areas. It doesn't take a lot of nitrogen to grow good grass."
Mike Rewinski, Superintendent for Westhampton Country Club

"Over the past 20 years, the USGA has dedicated a significant amount of time and resources focusing on environmental research and outreach. Through programs such as the Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary Program for Golf Courses and Wildlife Links, and continued funding of environmental turfgrass research, the USGA promotes ecologically sound land management and the conservation and protection of natural resources both on and around golf courses. As part of the Peconic Estuary team, we are pleased to apply this body of knowledge toward assisting the East End golf courses in meeting the Nitrogen Management Challenge. This program is a winner for all entities involved, the environment, and for the game of golf.
Dr. James H. Baird, Agronomist, Northeast Region, USGA Green Section

"This measure demonstrates another major industry that is doing its part to reduce nitrogen loading; that's good for water quality and habitat. It will help in the continued restoration of our local harbors and bays."
Bob Deluca, President of Group for the South Fork, whose organization had staff involved in negotiations on the agreement.

"The Superintendents were earnest in their desire to help improve in ways to restore the bays and were a pleasure to work with. We look forward to other golf
industry-related measures that we can work on together."
Kevin McDonald, Chair of the Peconic Estuary Program's Citizen's Advisory Committee

"The County is pleased to support and participate in this cooperative effort to reduce the environmental impacts to the estuary and neighboring waters associated with maintaining golf courses. This initiative builds upon the County's efforts to work with members of the environmental and farming communities to reduce the use of nitrogen and pesticide on farmlands. Congratulations to each of the members of the Peconic Estuary Technical and Citizen's Advisory Committees, representatives of the golf industry and the region's golf course superintendents on reaching this farsighted agreement to protect the wetlands, waters, and wildlife on Long Island's east end."
Suffolk County Executive Steve Levy

"The Turfgrass Science Program at Cornell University is pleased to be part of the efforts of USEPA Region 2, NYSDEC, Suffolk County, US Golf Association- Greens Section, Peconic Estuary Program and golf courses on eastern Long Island to develop the Nitrogen Management Challenge for Golf Courses in the Peconic Estuary. This collaboration of government, university, and golf course industry representatives is paramount to the success of protecting and enhancing the environment on eastern Long Island and will serve as a model for environmental protection for many others."
Dr. Marty Petrovic, Professor of Turfgrass Science, Dept. of Horticulture, Cornell University


Tony Nysse
Asst. Supt.
Colonial CC
Ft. Worth, TX
Anthony J. Nysse
Director of Golf Courses & Grounds
Apogee Club
Hobe Sound, FL

Alan FitzGerald CGCS MG

  • Karma: +0/-0
Well I finally have some time to add my 2c, and thankfully a lot has been covered already.

It seems like there isn't a lot of UK input so far on this thread and I figured I'll throw what I know of that in here also. The R&A has been pushing sustainable greenkeeping for quite a few years now. The Open at Hoylake was it's poster child if you want an extreme example.  The concept is simple; minimize (or eliminate) water, pesticide and fertilizer inputs so the grass essentially adapts, all the "wuss grasses" die out and all you're left with is tough grasses that don't need any inputs.  Climate plays a huge part; here around Philly is completely different to say New England or the Mid West, not to menction the UK. The turf will recover there much more quickly (and more of it also). I believe that the EC has just passed a law banning all or most pesticides (I haven't read up on too much on it yet to see the full extent) so sustainable greenkeeping is even more relevant over there right now. Again, it does not require the total elimination of pesticides, water etc but ultimately to go in that direction.

All this makes perfect sense to me, however I (and I assume most other US supers) wouldn't have a job after a season like that, you need to remember that most club members are not like GCA members and have different priorities. Chemicals have made superintendents life easier, especially with the keeping up with the Jones' mentality for better conditioning. It's simple the more stress you add the more precautions you need to take. Is that to say that when chemistries became available that they were not overused, no, superintendents were just happy they had a new tool, but I'm talking 40-50-60 years ago, most modern superintendents use non organic materials to help them produce the product their members want and help them out in times of stress.

As for the downsides of going organic? it depends on ultimately what the club/member wants, if they don't mind brown turf, no carts, hairier surfaces then it'll save labor (money) and there will be no downside, however if they require similar standards as their current facilities, then costs will go up. Handwatering is a big issue, (although I do believe that when turf finally goes brown to leave it, however, it does need water in the time between green and brown), Using products like compost teas etc are great but require more sprays etc to get the products out there. I had a great conversation with Eddie Adams the old super of the Old Course after the 2000 Open. I was amazed how little they fertilized, watered etc. but that's what the members and guests expected and therefore they can get away with having weeds, brown turf etc. (just like Fishers Island and the others menctioned, the members are happy with it that way). Communication on the superintendents part is huge but it is a tough sell to people who may not want it.

As for research on 'organics' most are smaller outfits and the cost involved in 'sponsoring ' university trials is expensive, hence the big chemical companies can afford it and you see more research from them, it certainly isn't that the universities don't want to do the research but someones got to pay for it. Incidentially I did some compost tea trials a few years ago and got some amazing results but to put the time and commitment into such a program is not currently practical for me.

Alan FitzGerald GCS
LedgeRock Golf Club
« Last Edit: January 18, 2009, 10:15:24 PM by Alan FitzGerald »
Golf construction & maintenance are like creating a masterpiece; Da Vinci didn't paint the Mona Lisa's eyes first..... You start with the backdrop, layer on the detail and fine tune the finished product into a masterpiece

RJ_Daley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Thank you Anthony and Alan. 

Quote
As for the downsides of going organic? it depends on ultimately what the club/member wants, if they don't mind brown turf, no carts, hairier surfaces then it'll save labor (money) and there will be no downside, however if they require similar standards as the current facilities, then costs will go up.

However, I'd ask if that isn't a variable statement based on the geographic location.  Isn't there actually more cost to going completely organic in most types of soil and geo locations in the U.S. due to more likely that the courses are sited on more clay, silty, or othewise poorer soils than the typical links of GB&I.   Can't Hoylake and TOC get away with less inputs and very minimal management because of their soils and climates? 

Yet, to go totally organic in most areas here, doesn't it require a commitment of extra land for adequate windrowing multi-year cultivation of good compost, and much more compost more frequently applied and more labor intensively spread or worked in, with much higher protein based nutrients to be acted upon by the compost microbes that are encouraged in the soil profile?  Doesn't those protein based, and far more quantity of those organics cost much more both in $$ per ton, and more labor time to distribute.  The same with the tea bag innoculants... don't they require a lot more labor to make up and distribute? 

Isn't going organic on golf courses actually a bigger $$ commitment in materials and resource installation similar to going green with cars and energy uses, but it is the reduced impact on the environment that is the the goal at a costly tradeoff? 

If this is so, the downside is then more cost, not less.  But, less environmental impact, and forward looking resource usage and planning as the upside? 
No actual golf rounds were ruined or delayed, nor golf rules broken, in the taking of any photographs that may be displayed by the above forum user.

Craig Sweet

  • Karma: +0/-0
I would venture that non organic solutions are heavily subsidized and the true costs are greater than those of organic solutions.
LOCK HIM UP!!!

Patrick_Mucci


I would venture that non organic solutions are heavily subsidized and the true costs are greater than those of organic solutions.


How are non-organic solutions HEAVILY SUBSIDIZED ?


Joe Hancock

  • Karma: +0/-0
I would venture that non organic solutions are heavily subsidized and the true costs are greater than those of organic solutions.

I'm not sure what that means, but are you meaning in the context of maintenance, or something else that's off topic?

Joe
" What the hell is the point of architecture and excellence in design if a "clever" set up trumps it all?" Peter Pallotta, June 21, 2016

"People aren't picking a side of the fairway off a tee because of a randomly internally contoured green ."  jeffwarne, February 24, 2017

Craig Sweet

  • Karma: +0/-0
Petroleum based products have lots of costs that are borne by society....
LOCK HIM UP!!!

Joe Hancock

  • Karma: +0/-0
Petroleum based products have lots of costs that are borne by society....

Oh....wow.....and all I can think of is that using less water is better for golf turf......
" What the hell is the point of architecture and excellence in design if a "clever" set up trumps it all?" Peter Pallotta, June 21, 2016

"People aren't picking a side of the fairway off a tee because of a randomly internally contoured green ."  jeffwarne, February 24, 2017

Craig Sweet

  • Karma: +0/-0
Joe..Pat...I am just hazarding a guess that ferts. and seed manufacturers (golf courses do use lots of seed) traditionally have a petro-chemical relationship and typically where you have petro-chemicals and agriculture, you have some form of subsidy....either cheaper fuel for manufacturing, transportation subsidies...something.

Farming with local manure sources has been shown to save as much as $55 per acre....yet I know very few golf courses using local manure...
LOCK HIM UP!!!

Alan FitzGerald CGCS MG

  • Karma: +0/-0

However, I'd ask if that isn't a variable statement based on the geographic location.  Isn't there actually more cost to going completely organic in most types of soil and geo locations in the U.S. due to more likely that the courses are sited on more clay, silty, or othewise poorer soils than the typical links of GB&I.   Can't Hoylake and TOC get away with less inputs and very minimal management because of their soils and climates? 

Yet, to go totally organic in most areas here, doesn't it require a commitment of extra land for adequate windrowing multi-year cultivation of good compost, and much more compost more frequently applied and more labor intensively spread or worked in, with much higher protein based nutrients to be acted upon by the compost microbes that are encouraged in the soil profile?  Doesn't those protein based, and far more quantity of those organics cost much more both in $$ per ton, and more labor time to distribute.  The same with the tea bag innoculants... don't they require a lot more labor to make up and distribute? 

Isn't going organic on golf courses actually a bigger $$ commitment in materials and resource installation similar to going green with cars and energy uses, but it is the reduced impact on the environment that is the the goal at a costly tradeoff? 

If this is so, the downside is then more cost, not less.  But, less environmental impact, and forward looking resource usage and planning as the upside? 

Hi RJ
I believe climate is the main reason the links courses we menctioned can get away with lesser inputs and it's easier make the transition. Obviously the climate in GB&I is a lot more temperate than anywhere over here and perfect for turf growing. Remember also that these courses are old and therefore their soils have 'become' fertile over the decades and (again) due to the climate the need for pesticides is minimal anyway so therefore the soils have more microbial activity than a soil here may have.

Most organic materials can be purchased so unless the club is making their own I don't think extra land is necessary, however you are correct in saying that the compost teas do take extra time to 'brew' and apply. As was mentioned earlier due to the limited amount of nutrients in organic fertilizer the amounts required are greater than a synthetic  one.

"Less environmental impact, and forward looking resource usage and planning (are) the upside"s to incorporating organic materials to a golf course program but again the cost factor depends on the demands of the particular club. Theoretically in time the course will need less artificial inputs as the turf adapts (as Scott Anderson can prove) however the risks and compromises required to reach this are to great to gamble on.

Alan FitzGerald GCS
LedgeRock Golf Club
« Last Edit: January 18, 2009, 10:16:40 PM by Alan FitzGerald »
Golf construction & maintenance are like creating a masterpiece; Da Vinci didn't paint the Mona Lisa's eyes first..... You start with the backdrop, layer on the detail and fine tune the finished product into a masterpiece

TEPaul

Anthony Nysse:

Thank you for taking the time to post #75. Interesting stuff and it's nice to note the USGA was involved in that Long Island effort.

I hate to ask a stupid question but I really am a layman about agronomics, chemicals, whatever, so the question is what exactly is the effect of nitrogen getting into Long Island estuaries? What are the deleterious effects of nitrogen?

TEPaul

Alan Fitzgerald:

Thanks so much for your post #76 and your follow-up post and thanks RJ for some really good and on-point questions.

It seems to me you answered most all of what I was hoping to get in this thread on post #76 (albeit in a fairly general sense). I guess now we should see if others on here agree or disagree with your over-all and point by point analysis and to what extent.

As to getting the green committees and whole memberships at clubs to understand this stuff and buy into a transition with a general maintenance program, of course supers can be most helpful and effective in that but I feel that kind of education and persuasion certainly does need to come from within the membership too to be really effective and successful as to the contentment of the membership.

As perhaps the last piece of this puzzle, I guess the inherent variables of soils and weather conditions in various very different regions of the country certainly adds to the complexity of how to transition to this kind of maintenance program (I think we know some kind of "one-size-fits-all" program may not work region to region except in a very general sense). It's not that the supers in various regions don't know how to do it or can't figure it out, I think it's more a matter of explaining to entire memberships what it takes in detail and certainly what to expect given various scenarios (of weather and seasonal conditions and such).

I think the latter point---eg what entire memberships expect has been something of a failure to some extent within my own club and it's not the fault of our super, I view it as a failure on the part of people within the membership, particularly people on the golf and green committee, people like me, to comprehensively explain it to the memberhip going into the program and not after the fact.
« Last Edit: January 19, 2009, 10:05:16 AM by TEPaul »

Joe Hancock

  • Karma: +0/-0
Tom,

I'm not sure of any deleterious effects (usually a word we use to indicate materials that would be removed from a work site), but here's a link that explains some of the detrimental effects of nitrates and human health.




http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/facts-slides-self/facts/nit-heef-grw85.html

Happy reading!
" What the hell is the point of architecture and excellence in design if a "clever" set up trumps it all?" Peter Pallotta, June 21, 2016

"People aren't picking a side of the fairway off a tee because of a randomly internally contoured green ."  jeffwarne, February 24, 2017

TEPaul

Joe:

Thanks for that. Obviously if someone like me is going to try to explain these kinds of details to my own membership within this kind of tranistion I need to know those kinds of details. At the moment I don't think I do---at least not well enough. So I look forward to reading that Cornell report.

Craig Sweet

  • Karma: +0/-0
TomPaul...I think the bigger problem to water system is phosphate...but I could be wrong.
LOCK HIM UP!!!

TEPaul

Joe:

I have just read the rather short first paragraph of that Cornell report which contains just two sentences and already you have saddled me with understanding "methmoglobinemia"!!!!

Thanks a lot Pal. You're a real buddy!!!    ;)


Craig Sweet:

And now PHOSPHATE???

What does that cause---hypochondriamelonominiatris???

Jeeeesus Keerist, thanks buddy! What if I see a goose shit on my golf course? Should I pull out my .45 and shoot the little motha because it might be putting too much Whateverate in the soil that causes "Canadiagoosologomeasles"?
« Last Edit: January 19, 2009, 10:21:20 AM by TEPaul »

Craig Sweet

  • Karma: +0/-0
Could it be that the slow release nature of organic fertilizer means fewer applications and thus a lower cost over time?
LOCK HIM UP!!!

Joe Hancock

  • Karma: +0/-0
Craig,

I think the greatest danger of Phosphates is the pollution to surface water, and subsequent weed and algae growth. In fact, some States and counties prohibit or restrict the application of phosphorous based fertilizers to protect surface water. I'm not sure of the health risks to humans.

Joe
" What the hell is the point of architecture and excellence in design if a "clever" set up trumps it all?" Peter Pallotta, June 21, 2016

"People aren't picking a side of the fairway off a tee because of a randomly internally contoured green ."  jeffwarne, February 24, 2017

TEPaul

Hey Joe, do you know if anyone in one of these sophisticated university agronomy schools has ever tried to crossbreed a human being and say bent grass? Maybe that's the ultimate answer here! I'm sending an email to our green chairman right now suggesting that he consider sleeping with the grass on our course at least twice during every season. If that inspires him to have sex with it we may be the club who will find the real breakthrough here.
« Last Edit: January 19, 2009, 10:29:22 AM by TEPaul »

Joe Hancock

  • Karma: +0/-0
Hey Joe, do you know if anyone in one of these sophisticated university agronomy schools has ever tried to crossbreed a human being and say bent grass?

Once again, I can only pontificate from previous personal experiences without the benefit of solid university research to corroborate my findings....

 ;D

" What the hell is the point of architecture and excellence in design if a "clever" set up trumps it all?" Peter Pallotta, June 21, 2016

"People aren't picking a side of the fairway off a tee because of a randomly internally contoured green ."  jeffwarne, February 24, 2017

Joe Hancock

  • Karma: +0/-0
Could it be that the slow release nature of organic fertilizer means fewer applications and thus a lower cost over time?

I'm not a fertilizer expert, but I think Urea is an organic compound that is now synthetically produced. It is far from a slow release compound.

I think jumping to the conclusion that all organic fertilizers are slow release would be incorrect, but I don't know specifics.

Joe
" What the hell is the point of architecture and excellence in design if a "clever" set up trumps it all?" Peter Pallotta, June 21, 2016

"People aren't picking a side of the fairway off a tee because of a randomly internally contoured green ."  jeffwarne, February 24, 2017

TEPaul

Joe:

Our last green chairman was a woman. Do you think it would be more genetically effective if I asked her to consider sleeping with our bent grass?
« Last Edit: January 19, 2009, 10:35:41 AM by TEPaul »

Craig Sweet

  • Karma: +0/-0
Joe...I think you are right...I know of no health risk from Phosphates...
LOCK HIM UP!!!

Joe Hancock

  • Karma: +0/-0
Joe:

Our last green chairman was a woman. Do you think it would be more genetically effective if I asked her to consider sleeping with our bent grass?

It couldn't hurt, as my findings indicate that simply "sleeping" on it proved ineffective.....
" What the hell is the point of architecture and excellence in design if a "clever" set up trumps it all?" Peter Pallotta, June 21, 2016

"People aren't picking a side of the fairway off a tee because of a randomly internally contoured green ."  jeffwarne, February 24, 2017

Craig Sweet

  • Karma: +0/-0
Joe, my understanding of organic ferts. is they need to be broken down before the plant can use them...inorganics don't...that is why, I assume they coat some inorganics so they slow their release
LOCK HIM UP!!!

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back