[Craig Sweet]

Bradley....don't the inorganic...chemical fertilizers/pesticides/herbicides...have a much larger carbon foot print than the organics?  If so, I would think that the argument could be made that they do more environmental damage....

The one thing I found interesting was the amount of really bad things that can get stuffed into a bag of fertilizer...lead/arsenic/cyanide...and as I understand it the bad stuff comes in the filler that is by and large ash and waste from large incinerators...

The nursery business isn't any different than the golf course maintenance business...the sales people work for large distributors that may or may not be "mom and pop" and these distributors carry several "brands"....and every spring the distributor and their salespeople bring someone from one of the "brand name" products into town for a dog and pony show and all the latest info gets passed around and debated...in my 17 years in the green industry these dog and pony shows rarely, if ever discussed organics...and when they did, the "brand name" shot them down....and if the brand name company happened to have a "brand new line of organic products"....their knowledge and support of the product was woefully lacking...old habits die hard and these guys were chemical guys first and foremost...

[Joe Hancock]

Bradley, in one of the pubs I read, it states that on greens, 1 gallon/1000sf is recommended for anaerobic extracts and aerobic teas, weekly to bi-weekly.   How would that effect sprayer nozzle wear-out timeframes?  Is the organic material less corrosive than most fungicide formulations?

The cost of new nozzles every few months is of no consequence...unless there is some other point to the question that I'm totally missing. FWIW, I don't know the answer to your question, nor would it factor into my decision on using a certain type of product.

Joe

[Craig Sweet]

RJ....don't confuse organic fertilizers with compost...they both are organic, but the fertilizer can come in several forms that can be used with a sprayer.

[Joe Hancock]

Craig,

Those sales folks spend a lot of time with you only if they know you'll use a lot of stuff.

You apparently know about all the incidental ingredients in synthetic, commercially produced products. Can you tell me what all the ingredients of a local dairy farmers cow manure pile are? Does it ever get contaminated with something other than bovine feces?

You have established your position in this discussion...don't let it get in the way of fact finding.

Joe

[RJ_Daley]

Well I see your point Joe.  Besides, if I think about it... it wouldn't be all that bad if the nozzles were goofed up, and the spray rates were off to the overage side with the tea and extract stuff, because you could hardly get to a point that you'd be overspraying harmfully, compared to the precision required of some chem stuff. 

[Jimbo]

Striving for uniformity requires more water, more fertilizer and chemicals, and quick, predictable inorganic fertilizers.

So the downside is non-uniform turf.

[Joe Hancock]

Well I see your point Joe.  Besides, if I think about it... it wouldn't be all that bad if the nozzles were goofed up, and the spray rates were off to the overage side with the tea and extract stuff, because you could hardly get to a point that you'd be overspraying harmfully, compared to the precision required of some chem stuff. 

I'm not advocating using worn out nozzles. In fact, no matter what I'm spraying, I want to know precisely how much I'm putting out, and to know I'm doing so uniformly. If the nozzles are worn, replace them for $40.

The above is especially true if you, by some bad string of events, end up spraying used motor oil on your greens on an 85 degree day......not that it ever happened to me!!!!...

Joe

[Craig Sweet]

Joe, no question we need truth in labeling....for worker safety etc....I believe certified organic has to meet standards...and I will assume organic fertilizers (if it is manure) comes from cows that have grazed on organic grass and have not been injected with hormones and antibiotics...

By the way, do you know how to make a hormone?

Don't pay her..

[TEPaul]

Jim DeReuil said above:

"Striving for uniformity requires more water, more fertilizer and chemicals, and quick, predictable inorganic fertilizers.

So the downside is non-uniform turf."



Does anyone disagree with that statement as quite obviously there probably are a good many golfers who would consider non-uniform turf (at least as a goal) to be very much a downside?

[Kyle Harris]

Well I see your point Joe.  Besides, if I think about it... it wouldn't be all that bad if the nozzles were goofed up, and the spray rates were off to the overage side with the tea and extract stuff, because you could hardly get to a point that you'd be overspraying harmfully, compared to the precision required of some chem stuff. 

The above is especially true if you, by some bad string of events, end up spraying used motor oil on your greens on an 85 degree day......not that it ever happened to me!!!!...

Joe

This I have got to hear.............

[Joe Hancock]

Well I see your point Joe.  Besides, if I think about it... it wouldn't be all that bad if the nozzles were goofed up, and the spray rates were off to the overage side with the tea and extract stuff, because you could hardly get to a point that you'd be overspraying harmfully, compared to the precision required of some chem stuff. 

The above is especially true if you, by some bad string of events, end up spraying used motor oil on your greens on an 85 degree day......not that it ever happened to me!!!!...

Joe

This I have got to hear.............

So one day this superintendent goes to spray a little fertilizer, iron and Primo on his greens. As he's loading the sprayer, he sees a 2 1/2 gallon jug of "iron" by the door, so he grabs it and empties it into the sprayer along with the other goodies. After spraying he returns to the shop to rinse the sprayer, and the mechanic asks if I....I mean, the super moved a jug of oil. He responds that he hasn't, only that he used the clearly labeled jug of iron that was by the door. That's when the mechanic says he took a used iron jug out of the recycle bin to take home some used motor oil to his uncle who burns the stuff in the winter. The super starts to go ballistic...then reverts to his normal fits of laughter.

All was well. Those particular greens could handle a rate of 1 gallon per acre of used motor oil....even the poa showed absolutely no ill effects......dammit....

 

[Kyle Harris]

Well I see your point Joe.  Besides, if I think about it... it wouldn't be all that bad if the nozzles were goofed up, and the spray rates were off to the overage side with the tea and extract stuff, because you could hardly get to a point that you'd be overspraying harmfully, compared to the precision required of some chem stuff. 

The above is especially true if you, by some bad string of events, end up spraying used motor oil on your greens on an 85 degree day......not that it ever happened to me!!!!...

Joe

This I have got to hear.............

So one day this superintendent goes to spray a little fertilizer, iron and Primo on his greens. As he's loading the sprayer, he sees a 2 1/2 gallon jug of "iron" by the door, so he grabs it and empties it into the sprayer along with the other goodies. After spraying he returns to the shop to rinse the sprayer, and the mechanic asks if I....I mean, the super moved a jug of oil. He responds that he hasn't, only that he used the clearly labeled jug of iron that was by the door. That's when the mechanic says he took a used iron jug out of the recycle bin to take home some used motor oil to his uncle who burns the stuff in the winter. The super starts to go ballistic...then reverts to his normal fits of laughter.

All was well. Those particular greens could handle a rate of 1 gallon per acre of used motor oil....even the poa showed absolutely no ill effects......dammit....

 

Heh. Even the age old advice of RTFL wouldn't have worked there.

[Joe Hancock]

Nope....never before had I felt so betrayed by jugs.....

 

[Michael Rossi]

Jim DeReuil said above:

"Striving for uniformity requires more water, more fertilizer and chemicals, and quick, predictable inorganic fertilizers.

So the downside is non-uniform turf."



Does anyone disagree with that statement as quite obviously there probably are a good many golfers who would consider non-uniform turf (at least as a goal) to be very much a downside?

this statement is too vague. Jim please elaborate. Uniformity should not be confused with all green. Uniform, consistent and true is desired, but this can be uniformly dormant. Patchy with bare spots would upset most player I agree TEP.

[TEPaul]

Thanks MichaelR:

I think what's meant by "uniform turf" probably does need a bit more definition, but for my part, I think I get his drift! 

[Don_Mahaffey]

Most water, fert, and chem applications are done to either create or maintain a uniform surface for playing golf. As golf maintenance developed, a monochrome uniform color and perfectly uniform turf with good definition became the standard for excellent conditioning. Let’s use a well known course like Muirfield Village as an example as I believe some publication or other rates it as one of the best maintained golf course in the country. Now before anyone jumps me, the super there is outstanding and does a very good job of giving his employers what they want.
But, that uniform appearance would be difficult to maintain on a consistent basis if you had to reduce the inputs. However, I do not believe the golf course would play poorly if it wasn't quite so perfect. That is the bottom line. You can have a golf course play well if you cut back...say you could still do what you want on the greens but had to reduce water, fert and chem apps in the roughs by 1/2 and the fwys by 1/3rd. Does anyone here think you still couldn't play great golf if you did those things?

Reducing inputs is going to make our courses look different.

I think Jim DeReuil said it perfectly.

[TEPaul]

"I think Jim DeReuil said it perfectly."


Dandy Don:

So do I. But let's give others another opportunity to disagree with him ( for whatever their reasons), and with you, and with me! 

The point here is we need to come up with a pretty unassailable pitch for less water, less chemicals and greater organics if it's ever going to be considered valid generally. If we can't do that for whatever reason, then why should we propose what we do propose?

[Kyle Harris]

Tom,

A point of discussion for us tomorrow, and for this thread is this notion of acceptable turf loss, and more importantly, why superintendents are so afraid of having grass die.

I believe that less water/maintenance inputs is a far more easier sell if the idea of accepting some turf loss through the season is more favorable.

There are superintendents out there, if given the choice between 20% turf loss and losing a loved one, that would hesitate and take a deep breath before making a decision.

A bit of hyperbole, but I think you catch my drift.

[Sean_A]

Tom,

A point of discussion for us tomorrow, and for this thread is this notion of acceptable turf loss, and more importantly, why superintendents are so afraid of having grass die.

I believe that less water/maintenance inputs is a far more easier sell if the idea of accepting some turf loss through the season is more favorable.

There are superintendents out there, if given the choice between 20% turf loss and losing a loved one, that would hesitate and take a deep breath before making a decision.

A bit of hyperbole, but I think you catch my drift.

Kyle

As a rider to that idea is the notion of accepting less than ideal areas - especially off the fairways. 

I think there is a serious divide in the game today between striving for great conditions using whatever is necessary and creating the best conditions given the budget.  Obviously, every budget is different, but surely this aspect is driven by member expectations in relation to the history of the club.  It always amazes me when Americans go to the UK and praise the simplicity (getting less so with each passing year due to huge amounts of visitor cash) of the conditions then go home and complain if things aren't just so. 

Tom P

Generally speaking I would say the downside of less input is a higher risk of a disaster occurring.   I can't see why non-uniform turf is so undesirable, but I know you are right in that most golfers praise uniformity.  I think less input would probably add to the beauty of courses, allow them to take on the colour of the seasons more easily and reflect the changing playing characteristics of each season more easily.  IMO, these are all good ideals to strive for, but the golfer has to be convinced of this before many supers would be willing to put their heads on the chopping block of learning how to achieve this through at least a bit of trial and error.  Perhaps the USGA should be heading this movement rather than spending money on further agronomy research.  Honestly, can anybody out there say that they can't have a very acceptable playing surface because the know how for creating it doesn't exist?

Ciao

[Bradley Anderson]

Tom,

A point of discussion for us tomorrow, and for this thread is this notion of acceptable turf loss, and more importantly, why superintendents are so afraid of having grass die.

I believe that less water/maintenance inputs is a far more easier sell if the idea of accepting some turf loss through the season is more favorable.

There are superintendents out there, if given the choice between 20% turf loss and losing a loved one, that would hesitate and take a deep breath before making a decision.

A bit of hyperbole, but I think you catch my drift.

The point of discussion for today or tommorrow is for us to see Scott Anderson's program on this site so we can understand how it works and why it works.

Let's not talk about how much turf we have to be willing to loose. Keep in mind that you can loose all the weak wussy turf you want to in July, but its all going to come back again in the fall, winter, and spring season IF you don't first identitfy how that weak turf got there in the first place, and take the appropriate steps to fix those issues.

Personally I don't see any practical reason to continue this dialogue until we see the program.

 

[Joe Hancock]

No need to halt the discussion. Ye have not because ye ask not......


http://www.golfclubatlas.com/interviewanderson.html

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/interviewanderson2.html

Joe

[Bradley Anderson]

Bradley....don't the inorganic...chemical fertilizers/pesticides/herbicides...have a much larger carbon foot print than the organics?  If so, I would think that the argument could be made that they do more environmental damage....

Craig,

My golf course has a river flowing right through the middle of it. All of the drain lines on the golf course flow to the river. Twice a year I test the water where it enters the golf course and again where it leaves the golf course, and run the comparisons on the nutrients and elements to see if my fertility programs are having any effect on surface water quality or contamination. I am happy to report that thus far there has been virtually no effect on the surface water. Surface water is really the litmus test of wheather or not you are leaving a footprint on the environment.

In Arkansas where all the chickens that we eat are raised, they are having problems with surface water quality. Tose are the most contaminated streams and rivers in America. And guess where the contamination is coming from? Its coming from chicken manure, and the amounts of chicken manure. So you can contaminate the environment with manure. The question is how much manure does it take to contaminate the environment? I don't know the answer to that question. But I do know that my use of synthetic fertilizers are not effecting the environment.

The one thing I found interesting was the amount of really bad things that can get stuffed into a bag of fertilizer...lead/arsenic/cyanide...and as I understand it the bad stuff comes in the filler that is by and large ash and waste from large incinerators...

Where did you read this?

The nursery business isn't any different than the golf course maintenance business...the sales people work for large distributors that may or may not be "mom and pop" and these distributors carry several "brands"....and every spring the distributor and their salespeople bring someone from one of the "brand name" products into town for a dog and pony show and all the latest info gets passed around and debated...in my 17 years in the green industry these dog and pony shows rarely, if ever discussed organics...and when they did, the "brand name" shot them down....and if the brand name company happened to have a "brand new line of organic products"....their knowledge and support of the product was woefully lacking...old habits die hard and these guys were chemical guys first and foremost...

How do you know that the nursery business isn't any different than the golf business? You may be right but in my experience I have had sales calls from people that are so widely spread over the spectrum that I can not say that there is any pattern at all.

[TEPaul]

"The point of discussion for today or tommorrow is for us to see Scott Anderson's program on this site so we can understand how it works and why it works."


Bradley:

We're starting to work on that but it can't be done by today or tomorrow. Scott Anderson would definitely like to do that, I think, and Kyle Harris seems to have come up with a really interesting way to go about it. He's even spoken with Ran Morrissett about it who seems to be on board. The method or mechanism is called something like antcast; ahh, is it wormcast? No sorry, about that, I'm not too tech savy, it's called podcast, and it's audio! 

[TEPaul]

"There are superintendents out there, if given the choice between 20% turf loss and losing a loved one, that would hesitate and take a deep breath before making a decision.
A bit of hyperbole, but I think you catch my drift."


Kyle:

Is that right? That seems a bit severe with some of these superintendents! 

Well, if that's the case we could sure go back to some of the habits of some of the earliest societies that got heavily into animal and human sacrifice to apparently appeal to the good graces of the Gods.

I think Scott Anderson said he would prefer not to exceed 5% turf loss annually but if you think it's up to 20% maybe you could offer yourself as a candidate for human sacrifice on the 18th green to assuage the Agronomic Gods and reduce the turf loss down to around 5%.

My suggestion, however, would be for you to undergo a complete physical first before we spill your blood and guts all over the course to see what you're made up of. What if you had too much salt in your body or you'd been ingesting pot or cocaine or heroin or some synthetic hallucinagens like LSD and Angel Dust?

I don't think Scott wants his turf and all the otherwise beneficial bugs and microbes in it to get like, you know, really high and wide!! Have you ever seen a herd of earthworms on LSD? Well, I have. Believe me it is not a pretty sight.

[TEPaul]

JoeH:

Thanks for hyperlinking those Scott Anderson interviews but I think he feels, at this point, that they definitely need to be added to or enhanced. I believe he did say over here last month that he is aware that for a variety of reasons the specific things he has done at HVGC may not be completely transportable, and the idea is to figure out how to make general F&F programs like his transportable.

Again, I don't think and I don't think he thinks that the supers out there can't do it or can't figure out how to do it. They can, and as I see this it's really more a matter of something directed at membership education towards expectation of what they're going to get, how long it takes, what the transition involves and what the end game will produce.

If something like real loss of uniformity of turf (as mentioned above as a downside) turns out to be an unavoidable reality then obviously entire memberships are going to need to be aware of this and somehow be persuaded to buy into it.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()