[Richard Choi]

As a big fan of science, I would like to point out that just because something is "organic" does not meant that it is good (cyanide, ebola, ricin, etc are all "organic").

There has been some posts on this thread that really pushes the boundaries on scientific thinking. Just because something is "chemical" does not mean it is bad. Not everything has to be tested to be safe. Small amount of bad stuff in your body is actually helpful.

Chemistry is nothing more than rearranging of molecules to desired structure. This can be done in factories and/or labs, or it can be done out in the nature (usually via reaction with sunlight and bacteria). Same goes for genetics, it can be done by breeding, or by genetic manipulations. If you look at it from the molecule point of view, whether or not it was manufactured in nature or factories really does not make any difference.

This mantra that "all chemicals must be eliminated" is neither realistic nor practical nor desired. There are numerous chemicals that we use everyday that have made our lives much better.

As with everything, moderation is key. Don't use more than absolutely necessary and perfection should never be your goal.

Let's take a step back from environmental jihadism.

[Richard Choi]

Kelly, I respectfully disagree.

Based on organic farming requirements, a farm that uses cyanide or ricin in their soil or ebola for mulch would be perfectly within the guidelines. They are all "natural" products and not sythesized, so they are allowed. Of course, no sane farmer would, but that is beside the point.

In my point of view, organic farming is a luxury efforted to rich countries with abundant natural resources. US can afford organic farming because it produces so much food the "regular" way that you can afford to have some ineffecient outlets that can charge more. Organic farming is practiced for real everyday in Africa and many poor countries in SE Asia and South America, but not by choice. They cannot produce enough to feed themselves and have to rely on help from foreigners. And in search for more fertile soil, they regularly clear old growth forrest and jungles, destroy topsoil with the poor farming technics, and do tremendous amount of damange with their "organic" methods.

If they had access to cheap and available basic chemical fertilizers and pesticides and modern farming techniques, they could produce enough to become independent and do less damage to their environment. I think that is a good thing.
 
There is a reason why farmers around the world migrated from all organic to chemical helpers. It is also the main reason why this planet can support many thousands times more population than ever thought possible. If you are willing to reduce the global population by 2/3 or so, I think organic farming would be the way to go, just spell out for me how you are intending to do so.

There is absolutely NOTHING natural about golf today. Show me a natural pasteur where it is lined with trees with thick grass that only grows 1/4 inches tall. If you really want natural, you should demolish inland courses and stick to authentic links layouts maintained with sheeps. Obviously, 100% natural is not practical nor 100% synthesized. We need to find a happy balance. Zealots from either side is really not helping finding that balance.

[Richard Choi]

Kelly, I still do not see anywhere in your post where a famer's use of cyanide (say as a pesticide) would preclude it from getting an "organic" label as it would fall under "use only natural materials" rule.

And I will see your UN report and raise you Robert Paarlberg; http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/19/will-the-green-revolution-ever-hit-africa/

[Jud_T]

Richard-have you seen the film "Food inc."?

[Richard Choi]

Yes, I have. I still prefer reading "The Jungle"...

[Tom_Doak]

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.

Isn't this the real question in the debate right now?  The golf industry (at least in America) insists that banning chemicals is an overreaction, and says that American golfers are not ready to accept that standard of turf quality for the time being.  But will American golfers EVER volunteer to accept a lower standard unless it is forced upon them?  Won't they just be like the big banks and the oil companies [or, for my Republican friends, the Federal government], and say it is "a bridge too far" but someday they might move a little in that direction, as long as it's strictly on a voluntary basis that no one checks up on?

[Richard Choi]

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.

[Jake Straub]

A couple of thoughts on this topic:

Kelly- I appreciated where you are coming from with regards to organics and how you are trying to use them in your life, unfortunately with GMO crops everywhere, there is not much left that is really truly "organic"....The big guys have really bastardized this market and profit from the increased prices, while presenting the customer with nothing more than chemical free garbage.  IMO If you really want to do something for yourself and your family get a refractometer and learn about "brix" and nutrient dense food, it will blow you away at how little nutrition there is in our food..

Homeowners maybe the biggest abbusers of chemicals out there.  Many people want there lawns to look like golf course and in doing so, they start a fertility plan that uses the same amount of Nitrogen on their putting green size yard as a farmer uses to grow 170 bushel per acre of corn?  Doesn't make a lot of sense to me......

I don't think supers get enough credit for the change in the way that many of them fertilize, these folks have replaced their tons with spoonfuls and are seeing improved results throughout the season.

I really find this to be a great thread and would love to get involved in this much deeper for supers here in the US....Let me know how to help...

[Sean Remington (SBR)]

Going back to Matt's original post.

"  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.). "

I would ask if this program also pointed out the average life expectency in the U.S. in 1910 was 47 years and in 2010 it is 79.  This change in 100 years corresponds directly with advancments in industry and science.   I am not trying to be controversial but let's not just see the glass half empty.  And IF there are 80,000 chemicals out there that are bad for us how come my kids need allergy medicine for tree polin and molds?

I agree that we should be the best Stewards of the environment that we can but you cannot make comparisons between Colorado and the mid-atlantic.

[Jake Straub]

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.

Sorry Kelly I thought that this would pop up on the first page of google http://www.highbrixgardens.com/ .  Little more information here.

[Richard Choi]

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).

[Jake Straub]

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).

Richard I will try to tie my statements from a previous post back to the current statements in this post, your comment on there is NO BASIS might be a little quick after just reading Kelly's response.  If you dig a little deeper you will see the correlation between nutrient dense foods and nutrition not only for us but also what we eat.  Below is an interesting quote from Wikipedia when you type in nutrition.

 

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.

So my point to all of this is we need to feed the soil and the microorganisms in the soil, so that these nutrients end up in the plant in the correct ratios not only for animal, but also human consumption.

Now my question to others is how do we expedite this process on a grow in where having turf is critical not only for play but also for other larger environmental reasons like erosion and leaching?  Is it easier to grow in turf one way but maintain in a complete other way? In doing this though have we destroyed the biological life cycle in the soil, leaving us with a long road ahead?

[Richard Choi]

Jake, there is absolutely no scientific basis for saying that you need to "feed the soil" and microorganism in such way the "correct ratio" can be achieved. First, what is a "correct ratio"? Food and nutrients are absorbed differently between animals and organisms and also based on how the food is prepared. How do you know that "correct ratio" will work at all?

I am sorry for being harsh, but I am just little sick and tired of hearing these scientific-sounding mumbo jumbo new agey stuff that have no bearing with science. I am happy that people are trying to eat more healthy, but there is just too much of these "learnings" floating around that are nothing more than some "beliefs" spread by "gurus". They should be taken for what they are, pure anecdotes with no proofs whatsoever.

And Kelly, I was just in Seoul, Korea, and I could help but notice how many restaurants were around. Every city block probably had 10 to 20 restaurants of all shape and type packed in. So, I think I can safely say that Koreans (and other Asians) like to eat. But another thing I also noticed was how everyone walks. Unlike US, Asians live in large metropolis and vast majority use public transportation and walk to everywhere. I think the fact that they spend so much calories moving around and being active probably has a lot to do with the fact that their obesity problem is so much less (and the severe social stigma that goes with it). If you go to NYC, you will notice that they have similar lifestyle and they are significantly thinner than what you see in cities with more sprawl.

[Jake Straub]

Richard-As the figure below shows, about half of the nitrogen in manure is in the form of ammonium and about half is in the form of organic material. Microbes that consume the organic compounds excrete ammonium. One of four things will happen to the ammonium - regardless of whether it comes directly from the manure or from microbes consuming the organic compounds. The ammonium may be:

   1. used by plants immediately,
   2. converted to ammonia and lost to the air,
   3. converted to nitrate which will be used by plants or microbes, leached out of the soil, or denitrified and evaporated,
   4. used by microbes. Microbes convert the nutrients to organic compounds which cannot be used by plants or easily lost from the soil. These "immobilized" nutrients become available to plants when the microbes are consumed by other organisms that release ammonium as a waste product.

In the warmth of summer, plants and microbes are growing vigorously and use ammonium and nitrate quickly. Losses of nitrate to leaching is greater in spring and fall when fewer plants and microbes can turn it into organic matter. More complex ecosystems (e.g., a pasture with many plant species, a rotation that includes cover crops, or a weedy field,) are more likely to have some plants and microbes active at all times of the year, preventing the loss of nitrogen from the root zone.

[Jake Straub]

sorry guys hit the post button a little early .....by the way that was taken from a University of Minnesota extension paper...

Richard my point in the above post shows for just one nutrient how important it is to feed the microbiology of the soil so that they are active and diverse in populations, this is taken from the folks at Soil Foodweb:

A FEW IMPORTANT BACTERIA

Nitrogen-fixing bacteria form symbiotic associations with the roots of legumes like clover and lupine, and trees such as alder and locust. Visible nodules are created where bacteria infect a growing root hair. The plant supplies simple carbon compounds to the bacteria, and the bacteria convert nitrogen (N2) from air into a form the plant host can use. When leaves or roots from the host plant decompose, soil nitrogen increases in the surrounding area.

Nitrifying bacteria change ammonium (NH4+) to nitrite (NO2-) then to nitrate (NO3-) – a preferred form of nitrogen for grasses and most row crops. Nitrate is leached more easily from the soil, so some farmers use nitrification inhibitors to reduce the activity of one type of nitrifying bacteria. Nitrifying bacteria are suppressed in forest soils, so that most of the nitrogen remains as ammonium. Denitrifying bacteria convert nitrate to nitrogen (N2) or nitrous oxide (N2O) gas. Denitrifiers are anaerobic, meaning they are active where oxygen is absent, such as in saturated soils or inside soil aggregates.

Actinomycetes are a large group of bacteria that grow as hyphae like fungi. They are responsible for the characteristically “earthy” smell of freshly turned, healthy soil. Actinomycetes decompose a wide array of substrates, but are especially important in degrading recalcitrant (hard-to-decompose) compounds, such as chitin and cellulose, and are active at high pH levels. Fungi are more important in degrading these compounds at low pH. A number of antibiotics are produced by actinomycetes such as Streptomyces.

I won't overload you with any more in depth information on the other classes of soil biology like fungi, protozoa, nematodes, and arthropods but you can check all of this information out from your "sources of choice" ...by the way what do you use as your concrete science sources??? In my experience in the Ag/Turf world science is constantly changing beacuse of the fact new research and findings. 

 

[Steve Okula]

Jake,

Can you tell me approximately how many species of soil micro-organisms have been identified by science?

The identified species constitute approximately what percentage of all soil species?

[Richard Choi]

“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.”

Kelly, I don't dispute that Western societies (really US) have weight issues. But at this point there is nothing scientifically conclusive other than people in US ingest FAR MORE calories than they spend. All of the diseases you mention can simply be the result of enormous calorie intake, especially via high-carbohydrate/high-sugar diet. There is a lot of studies coming out debunking the relationship between high-fat diet and heart disease. I would argue that you take exactly the same diet, but reduce it by 1/3 in calorie, you will see a lot of improvements in health.

Jake, I don't doubt that having a healthy microbe ecosystem is good for plant growth, but nothing you have mentioned relates anything to making plants more "nutrient dense".

[Ian Larson]

Jake / Kelly

Good stuff. Just be careful because when you start throwing out science and research on here the guys that like to call it textbook and snake oils in the name of sticking to the basics don't realize or are ignorant that this is the foundation for their basics. People get defensive and angry while discrediting any proof or research brought to the table while really never bringing much of substance to the table themselves.

Soil is the base for plant nutrition. There are many highly educated people in the world that spend their careers studying and researching it and how it affects plant life. Correct ratios exist...wether its nutrients, plant hormones, organic acids, pH, water, air etc etc...because researchers have studied all of this extensively to conclusively say that certain plants (and animals) are their healthiest with the observed patterns of ratios in different environments. And thats not saying things that have been concluded one way can't change. Nature is organic and forever changing. And thats not saying a plant can survive outside of conclusive research that says otherwise. Everything Jake has said about the soil is right and has a direct effect on how nutrients are taken up and processed by the plant, directly resulting in the plants nutritional value.   

[John Gosselin]

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.

This is hilarious. Guaranteed the lawns these little kiddies are sitting on have way more pesticides and fertilizers on them then the golf course. And many of the chemicals that have been banned on golf courses are still very much available for the home owner and the lawn care companies, so the little kiddies are getting the good stuff Richard. When they go in to eat dinner they really get the biggest exposure since the food crop industry is also using chemicals that have been banned on golf courses for years as well. Are you okay with eating lettuce sprayed by an insecticide that is banned for use on golf courses because it has to long of a residual effect? Because that is what is happening mostly because golf is an easy target for these emotionally based laws.

Golf courses are an easy target for miss guided people who think for some reason the are big users of pesticides and fertilizers. That is just not the case.

If you are really worried about the environment as it relates to pesticides and fertilizers you need to concentrate on the food crop industry and the home lawn care industry.

[Don_Mahaffey]

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"...

  Jake, interesting comments about refractometers and brix. If you've ever read any Acres  USA stuff you've probably read about using refractometers to measure the health/fertility of crops and turf.

In 1997, I measured the clippings off of my greens from April thru Oct with a refractometer. Unfortunately I no longer have the data but I remember the results. I was trying to find the most efficient and cost effective way to fertilize my greens. I charted soil temps, weather, brix readings, fert apps, and turf quality in an attempt to put some "science" behind all the claims I was getting from salesmen. What I learned was simple and something that has stayed with me since. As long as I had some food and air in the rootzone, the best brix readings were on sunny days with medium soil temps. Cloudy days  was the largest negative influence on brix readings. Warm, cold, wet, dry, the readings were always low on cloudy days. Next most influencing factor was soil temps and air temps. I could go on but you get the picture. If the brix readings were a true representative measurement of the plants ability to produce carbohydrates then much of what was going on was out of my control and no one will ever convince me they can sell me sunshine in a bottle. Keep adequate food and air in the rootzone, manage traffic be it foot or equipment, and cut with sharp well adjusted mowers and you’ll grow good golfing turf...at least as measured by brix content.

[Bradley Anderson]

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.

[Jake Straub]

Steve-I will have to get back to you on your question, not quite sure and will have to do a little research.

Ian-Thanks for the advice, I was starting to get there on my own but I not the sharpest tack in the box.

Richard-Biology are the workhorses behind freeing nutrients that are in the soil.  The are constantly eating, excreting, procreating, and dying.  All the while converting nutrients that are producing carbohyudreates the next time the plant makes photosynthesis.  The plant then starts to exude microbial food sources(i.e. sucrose, glucose,) and the biology is fed, when this process begins to flourish a "mycorrhizae" relationship starts and the root mass increases with much finer root hairs that create a mop like system.  Now the root system has effectively increased it's water and nutrient capacity for the plant to make even more carbohydrates.  In doing so the nutrient density increases as more solids (carbohydrates, amino acids, glucose, sucrose) are produced in the plant through photosynthesis.

Don-Great point on Brix and turf.  I should have specified to Kelly that I was thinking more from a purchasing of fruits and vegetables, where all the nutritional value is already there.  I have tried to correlate brix readings in turf as well and my results have yielded much the same as yours.  For instance, timing is critcial and I was taught to only test between 11AM and 3PM, that way the plant is actively synthesising.  Never test the day after a rain as much of the nutrient value is still in the crown of the plant, atmoshperic pressure effects the plant from carrying nutrients into the leaf and therefore decreases brix readings.  My conclusions, as yours, were that it would be a great tool but at this point it's just not accurate enough on turf that is mowed on a daily, weekly basis.  I would use it on alfalfa, hay, other grass crops that are taller and harvested on a 4-6 week schedule in the summer.  One point that you did make that I agree with whole heartedly is the point on air in rootzone, I have been monitoring monthly nutrient levels on golf course playing surfaces for a couple  of years now (some courses 3+ yrs) and as soon as the oxygen levels start to drop in the summer, it becomes a battle to get to aerification.  IMO when you lose oxygen you lose your aerobic biology and when this starts to happen your carbon (thatch) stops converting to humus.  This carbon (thatch) layer now holds way to much water and problems begin to arise (disease, scalping, etc).



 

[Ian Larson]

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.

In a sense this is what bothers me about the turf industry. I only use all organic and biological products and there is nothing about them that require repeated applications over and over and over for them to be effective. So I very highly doubt a superintendent is spraying, for instance, his greens every night with the same product going after the same problem for his product to be effective. And I also highly doubt a superintendent that is environmentally conscious and choosing to go organic is doing such while watching his fuel budget go 1000 times higher than his neighbors because of it.

For one, the fact that if he HAD to spray every single day for the product to be effective....all of those applications would STILL be 1000 times less toxic than the ONE application a super does with synthetic fungicide. And it is completely common for a golf course operation to have a dedicated, full time spray technician...or two that spend their weeks spraying. And after they do their weekly greens spray for foliar fert, then they go back out to spray a systemic fungicide on the greens, then they go out and get tees, then they go out and get 30 acres of fairways. And when thats all done they're out cleaning up the courses weeds with herbicides to take up time. Then 10 days later it gets done all over again.

There is no such thing as a "BASIC" fungicide. Its all complex chemically engineered toxic substances that are meant to kill pathogens, weeds and living bugs systemically and by contact. There's nothing basic about that and there's nothing basic about its effects on the environment.

The problem in the turf industry is the clubs expectations for immaculate conditions and supply the super with big budgets to be able to utilize any and all types of pesticides at their disposal. And supers have been using these pesticides for years and years and I believe their perspective on just how dangerous they can be has been lost to an extent. Ive worked at Top 100 clubs that don't even hesitate for a split second to go out with cocktail mixes of multiple fungicides because of a little disease. And the catalyst for it is big budgets and the pressure to maintain immaculate conditions in order to keep their jobs.


Just like America's addiction to oil. I think the American golf course is addicted to pesticides. America uses 21 million barrels of oil a day and the closest country behind us is China at 7 million. Im going to go out on a limb here and say that the ratio is pretty similar when it comes to pesticide use compared to other countries. Just like it is important for everyone to try and reduce their use of single use plastics in their life I feel it is important for each super to reduce pesticide use, and actively seek out alternatives to synthetic pesticides.

The problem is not the single superintendent or golf course. The problem is in the collective of the American turf industry. Supers in general are just as quick to go out with a pesticide just as the average lazy American is willing to get in the car and drive 2 blocks to get their super sized value meal at McDonalds.

I commend the guys that have the interest and motivation to go organic and are able to communicate to their clubs about the lower acceptable threshold of disease, insects or weeds. There needs to be a paradigm shift with this and it will never start until the industry as a whole is able to communicate to memberships that golf can still be fun and their golf course will still be better than their buddies. And just like big oil, I feel like we are a generation away from truly implementing alternatives.   



 

[TEPaul]

In my opinion, this one may be one of the very most important threads ever seen on GOLFCLUBATLAS.com; and I even say that knowing that I am a real layman with such things as agronomics, biology and even science.

I truly commend just about every single one of the participants on this thread, particularly since a number of them are coming from quite different perspectives on both the specific and general areas that have made up this thread.

I just spent the last two hours reading this whole thread. I probably wouldn't have done it had it not been for some recent communications I've had with various people on this Greenway method and what they feel is its effectiveness, if done correctly.

In the back of my mind, something tells me some of the answers to our present and perhaps future problems, misperceptions, misunderstandings etc with golf and particularly golf turf may be found in taking a very close look at the nature and natural interworkings of grass and turf before a chemical industry even existed, and perhaps before Man began to essentially try to micromanage grass and turf for an inherently unnatural application of golf itself with grass, turf and agronomy.

I'm certainly not saying that golf should return to conditions that occured say before 1850, only that perhaps a careful look should be taken that far back to determine how Mother Nature herself dealt with it before Man ever thought to get himself involved in it.

As an example----is it not true to say that bent (agrostis) and fescue (festuca) survived naturally in the original linksland soil that was incredibly acidic simply because very little else could compete with those two strains in such acidity? And is it also not true to say that those two grass strains---bent and fescue were then and still are perhaps the finest grasses to play golf upon?

[Steve Okula]

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. 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()