[Bradley Anderson]

Ian,

I used to think of ET as a joke until I took over a system with a lot different nozzles, and dozens of part circle heads with varying radius. When you have so many heads with different precipitation rates, minutes become impossible to keep track of. ET is the most accurate way to water a uniform percipitation rate.

But don't interpret that as meaning that I replace all of what was lost to ET every day with 100% of what was lost. I don't know anyone who does that. I rarely replace more than 20% of the total of what is lost in a three day period.

Also I have adjusted every head on the course by its own percentage of the global percentage. We did this over a two year period of the cups man and the tee service man probing the greens, collars, tees, and fairways every morning during their rounds. They would come back and go over the map and let me know which areas where above or below the threshold we are after. We have it dialed in pretty tight. We also learned how important it is to have the exact degree radius of all the part circle heads loaded in the computer. Its is amazing how much you can trust these systems when you have them set up right.

Trust me man, I have a wall to wall system that's only 850 GPM - if I didn't conserve water I wouldn't keep up with it all.

[Jon Wiggett]

I was watching the evening news last night, and they did a topic on environmental pollution. One statistic especially stood out to me: there are over 80,000 chemicals that we are exposed to (in the form of pesticides, industrial pollution, CO2 emmissions from cars, cosmetics, etc.), but only about 200 of them have been tested to ensure that they are safe (won't cause cancer, dementia, etc.). It made me think about all the chemicals that are used to maintain golf courses, and whether any golf courses exist out there that are all-natural (ie organic)? Is anyone aware of a course that doesn't use chemical pesticides, or takes a stance on at least greatly minimizing their use of chemicals? Are the courses in better or worse shape?

Jon,

Yesterday we had temperature in the mid-80s. With combined effects of wind, humidity, solar radiation and temperature our evapotranspiration rates for the day were in excess of two tenths of an inch of moisture. Today we are forecasting a quarter of an inch of ET.  So I watered last night.

My greens were spriged with vegatative bents in the 1920's. Vegatative bents were bred to produce 5 leaves per shoot when maintained at 3/8's on an inch. But we are mowing them at under 1/8th of an inch. At that level those grasses maybe produce 2 or 3 leaves per shoot. They are stressed beyond the limits of tolerance. So Poa annua has replaced those grasses - Poa annua can manage well under those heights of cut.

But as you know, Poa annua isn't going to handle these temperatures without some water replenishment.

In either case, all we are doing with irrigation is maintaining a level of moisture that maybe isn't even as high as what you have on any given day of your season, owing to the fact that your ET rates are not nearly so far in excess of your natural rainfall.

And our fungicides are not in response to irrigation, but to humidity. If it was purely an irrigation causality, then why do we see the same pathogens in the rough, where we don't even water?

Bradley,

reread the original post. What we are dicussing here is is it possible to have a chemical free course and NOT why are you not maintaining your course in a chemical free manner. I am not attacking you nor requiring you to justify you reasons. As you say you lost the original sward through cutting it to short. I am sure this was as a result of demands from members/players and not a greenkeeping decision. The expectations of the golfer is probably the biggest thing in the way of chemical reduction.

What would be interesting would be to hear your ideas on how you might be able to maintain a course in your present climate chemical free if no restrictions of expectation were placed on you. I do not believe water is counted as chemical so you could keep the irrigation

Jon

Jon

[Bradley Anderson]

Jon,

Your profile picture is of a guy who made a religion out of living in a chemical induced state of mind, and you are all over my ass for spraying Daconil at 2 oz per thousand square feet every 10 days or so? Give me a friggin break!

If you had the humidity and temperatures that we have here, you would get the same diseases we get. And you would either adapt or loose your job. There are biological alternatives to chemicals, and I will be first to use them, but not until the carbon footprint of those products is less than what I use now. Do you have any idea how much product, manhours, and fuel it takes for the biological products to control disease?

You know something Jon, I have never once read one example, in any media, where an American superintendent was critical of the European methods of greenkeeping. Not once.

[Ian Larson]

Bradley,

Im not saying that you, specifically, over water your greens at your club and I don't intend to paint that picture. But my experience with irrigating based off of the daily ET rate is that the whole point of irrigating based off of the ET is to replace water lost relative to the ET rate. And every time I've used the ET rate in the program the damn course is wetter and soggier than what it should be. I've had systems where we had to share water with other courses and also had 850-ish GPM. A guy can still over water specific areas on the course if he had only 400 GPM. So IMO, from what I've seen with using ET as the basis for irrigating....in the muggy northeast summers, in the even muggier and hotter deep south, and in arid mediterranean southern california...ET irrigating delivers a little too much night after night. And I guess I just don't understand what the point of ET irrigating is when you dial it down to 20% of the ET. Ultimately your not replacing the water any differently than if it were done manually. I know you know what youre talking about and I havent the slightest clue about anything with your property...these just have been my observations with ET irrigators.


Look, in the past 6 years Ive become an active volunteer with the Surfrider Foundation environmental committees in West LA and Santa Barbara. My other passions are surfing and camping. And by extension I have a passion for the environment. And being active with Surfrider has increased my awareness with what my role is singularly with the environment. Between monthly beach cleanups, community awareness and sitting in on environmental committees I also have made a point to reduce and reuse within my own household. Single use plastics are eliminated, recycling and composting is an everyday habit, my girl and I ride bikes to the neighborhood farmers market to get fresh organic produce and take our cloth bags to shop with. Its not much in the big picture...but it helps the big picture.


Ive also spent the past 14 years of my life in the turf industry and Ive seen first hand many wrong things that make me mad. I know the culture, the personalities. I can honestly say that it is refreshing to see the small minority of superintendents and clubs in the country that take a genuine interest in approaching their golf operation kinda the same way I approach things at home and in my spare time. It would even be MORE refreshing to see the MINORITY to shift to the MAJORITY. With a majority comes power and with power comes change. And I said in an earlier post....I think we are a generation away from such a dynamic shift coming to the turf industry.


I can tell you from first hand experience that the biological alternative chemicals are not creating similar nor more of a carbon footprint than the synthetic complex and toxic compounds that are completely unnatural to the earth being sprayed in the turf and ag industries. They do not require more man hours and applications to be effective and by extension fuel. From how I see it you havent used these personally and are basing your opinion off of a guy you know.


Just like Americans use 3x as much oil in day as anyone in the world, the turf industry (especially in the states) is obsessed with toxic chemicals that are used as antibiotics. Antibiotics that kill the good and bad microbiology in the soil. There is no possible way for a fungicide to be so advanced that it can make a decision about what microbes are good and bad. Our lack of knowledge of the thousands of types makes that true. So we just go after all of them. We go after all of them after we over water the damn greens that ignites the disease in the first place!


The turf industry needs to start looking at organic management just like the country needs to be considering renewable energy. We have a crisis in the Gulf right now that was aided by Americans being lazy and taking the easy route. Jimmy Carter proposed his Renewable Energy Bill in the 70's to only be killed by Republicans. There is 30 years lost. The turf industry needs to START NOW with utilizing organic alternatives to the toxic bullshit they have come to love so dearly. More word needs to get out and more research funded and executed for even more effective organic based management.


This attitude in the turf industry that guys are "stewards of the environment" while they don't hesitate to go out spray whatever pesticide they want and throw hundreds and hundreds of 2 1/2 gallon jugs into the garbage without recycling is NUTS! You just mentioned to Jon about spraying 2 oz of Daconil over acres of turf compared to Bob Marley smoking a naturally occurring plant?!?! Really? You just went there??  You are not just spraying 2 oz of Daconil. You are throwing 5-10 gallons of a toxic substance into the environment. In 1 spray...just on greens. And you and I both know that if we looked at your pesticide records that there are times when you go out with a heavier rate and with multiple pesticides mixed with it. The amount of times Ive seen and been told to "go spray this" and the greens get painted white....much worse 22 acres of fairways is ridiculous!!!!!! And not only are greens getting preventively dumped with fungicide every 10 days, but they're getting a fert apps with fert that is ammonium based. Does microbiology thrive on ammonium in the soil?


Organic methods have been proven. Compost tea is made in a huge container that eliminates all of the single use fert jugs that get thrown out in the garbage. Its made on site with compost collected from clippings, bark, flowers, plugs from the golf course. A golf course can be fertilized in a dirt cheap and completely self sustainable manner. Less plastic waste that gets thrown into the dumps and it can be completely tailored to what you need and at what analysis. The best part about it is that its PROBIOTIC not ANTIBIOTIC. Its actually promoting the microbiology not killing it off. And promoting microbiology promotes better plant synthesis which promotes disease immunity and strength to repair itself from disease pressure. But it doesnt need to be sprayed anymore than the next guys cocktail mix of liquid fertilizer that took 20 plastic jugs that get thrown out into the garbage dumps and the total spray cost $2000.


Those who choose NOT to do serious research into the alternatives that are more sustainable and healthier for the grass plant and the neighborhood and the environment are ignorant. Just like those that STILL think OIL is the future for our energy. I dont think a guy would get fired for choosing to communicate to his membership the pros and cons to organic management. Help them understand how much healthier it is for everyone involved. Including the grass. Members consist of families with children that enjoy the game and ammenities at the club. I cant imagine a membership not valuing an organic approach. Or at least the REDUCTION of toxic chemicals. It can be done, it has been, it has been for a while with those who genuinely care.


Ill leave it with this which is an excerpt from an article on Jeff Carlson at The Vineyard Golf Club in Mass who has been doing this for a while and who has won multiple awards doing so. This kind of attitude would be so refreshing to see more of in the industry....


"Jeff attributes the success of The Vineyard Club to the fact that the members have such passion for environmental stewardship and have embraced the concept with full understanding. The proactive outreach and education plays a huge role in its success. Jeff will be the first to tell you that it is “all about communication.” Even greater evidence in their support lies in the fact the Vineyard Club President, Mr. Owen G. Larkin, has been appointed to the Advisory Council for the Environmental Institute for Golf."

[Scott Furlong]

I'm speechless..........................................or brain dead from reading these long posts.  I'm going to drink some Daconil to get rid of my headache.

Note:  This is a joke please do not drink Daconil.  If you do I'm not responsible and I will not appear in court.  

95 and humid today............welcome to the Mid-Atlantic  

[Bradley Anderson]

Ian,

Last I heard I a speech by Jeff Carlson, he indicated that he sprays his greens nearly every single day during the season. Now answer for me how that is better for the environment than spraying a fungicide, every 10 days or so, that has passed through millions of dollars of testing to receive EPA registration?

Which method uses more fuel and manpower?

Which method emmits more CO2?

Which method uses more labor?

I'm not saying that what he is doing is wrong, and actually I am glad that he is out there learning and experimenting to pass on the information to the rest of us. I learned more from his speech than any other speech at that conference. But his club can afford to do it. Most clubs would be put out of business with those kinds of regulations over them.

[Jon Wiggett]

I was watching the evening news last night, and they did a topic on environmental pollution. One statistic especially stood out to me: there are over 80,000 chemicals that we are exposed to (in the form of pesticides, industrial pollution, CO2 emmissions from cars, cosmetics, etc.), but only about 200 of them have been tested to ensure that they are safe (won't cause cancer, dementia, etc.). It made me think about all the chemicals that are used to maintain golf courses, and whether any golf courses exist out there that are all-natural (ie organic)? Is anyone aware of a course that doesn't use chemical pesticides, or takes a stance on at least greatly minimizing their use of chemicals? Are the courses in better or worse shape?

p.s. maybe Bob would have been better getting high on magic mushrooms being as they are more organic!!!

Jon,

Yesterday we had temperature in the mid-80s. With combined effects of wind, humidity, solar radiation and temperature our evapotranspiration rates for the day were in excess of two tenths of an inch of moisture. Today we are forecasting a quarter of an inch of ET.  So I watered last night.

My greens were spriged with vegatative bents in the 1920's. Vegatative bents were bred to produce 5 leaves per shoot when maintained at 3/8's on an inch. But we are mowing them at under 1/8th of an inch. At that level those grasses maybe produce 2 or 3 leaves per shoot. They are stressed beyond the limits of tolerance. So Poa annua has replaced those grasses - Poa annua can manage well under those heights of cut.

But as you know, Poa annua isn't going to handle these temperatures without some water replenishment.

In either case, all we are doing with irrigation is maintaining a level of moisture that maybe isn't even as high as what you have on any given day of your season, owing to the fact that your ET rates are not nearly so far in excess of your natural rainfall.

And our fungicides are not in response to irrigation, but to humidity. If it was purely an irrigation causality, then why do we see the same pathogens in the rough, where we don't even water?

Bradley,

reread the original post. What we are dicussing here is is it possible to have a chemical free course and NOT why are you not maintaining your course in a chemical free manner. I am not attacking you nor requiring you to justify you reasons. As you say you lost the original sward through cutting it to short. I am sure this was as a result of demands from members/players and not a greenkeeping decision. The expectations of the golfer is probably the biggest thing in the way of chemical reduction.

What would be interesting would be to hear your ideas on how you might be able to maintain a course in your present climate chemical free if no restrictions of expectation were placed on you. I do not believe water is counted as chemical so you could keep the irrigation

Jon

Jon

Jon,

Your profile picture is of a guy who made a religion out of living in a chemical induced state of mind, and you are all over my ass for spraying Daconil at 2 oz per thousand square feet every 10 days or so? Give me a friggin break!

If you had the humidity and temperatures that we have here, you would get the same diseases we get. And you would either adapt or loose your job. There are biological alternatives to chemicals, and I will be first to use them, but not until the carbon footprint of those products is less than what I use now. Do you have any idea how much product, manhours, and fuel it takes for the biological products to control disease?

You know something Jon, I have never once read one example, in any media, where an American superintendent was critical of the European methods of greenkeeping. Not once.

Bradley,

I have not once attacked or criticised your approach to greenkeeping yet your reply is not only aggressive using langauge that belongs more in the gutter but also completely misses the point.

To ask the same question again:

What would be interesting would be to hear your ideas on how you might be able to maintain a course in your present climate chemical free if no restrictions of expectation were placed on you? I do not believe water is counted as chemical so you could keep the irrigation.

Once again I would point out I have NEVER commented on your maintainance practises and I am genuinely interested in any ideas you may have on this subject.

Jon

[Bradley Anderson]

Jon,

The bottom line here is American superintendents don't have to justify their management practices, or their environmental responsibility, to a pot smoking advocate from Europe. (You put a picture of Bob Marley on your profile and you are making a statement about your values. Are you an advocate of altering the mind with chemicals?)

But when we experience weather patterns that are common in your part of the world, we do not spray.

When new products come out that purport to control disease, we may not all experiment with those products, but I would wager that 90% of us take a great interest in the effectiveness of those methods. I have no doubt that our culture is the same as yours in that respect. I mean does everyone in Europe try every latest new thing or method? I would guess that a few guys try the new products and methods and then share with their peers how they worked, and when those products and methods are successful they are gradually adopted by everyone.

Most of us here do not spray for phythium anymore because we have reduced nitrogen rates significantly, and we now have phosphite fertilizers that strenghten the plant against phythium. No doubt other breakthroughs will continue in the evolution of American greenkeeping.

[Ian Larson]

Jon,

I cant promise I can refrain from using language that belongs in the gutter but I will say this. In general, American supers preventively water their turf. And in response they preventively spray with fungicides. American supers, regardless if they understand or appreciate classic golf course architecture and maintenance.....are bound by their balls to the Augusta affect. They are employed by owners and members who are well travelled and well played in the sport but command conditions and standards at their home clubs that are bass-ackwards and contradictory to the courses and clubs they romanticize in the UK. Its not really the American supers fault. Its the stupid fucking owners and even more stupid members in the grand ole' USA that are driving the train. And as a result we have supers who have become numb to the affects of the pesticides they are forced to use. Is it only me on this website, but am I the only one seeing that some of the best superintendent contributors on this site...that we know respect and appreciate the origins of the game....are at a point where they ABSOLUTELY CANNOT allow a single piece of brown turf....whether its by disease or by cutting off irrigation....on their golf courses. I fully understand the profession even when it was at its best....and also when its at its worst right now. Guys CANNOT afford to adhere to what they know is best for their property and become whores to their employers....who may or may not know what the fuck they are talking about. This isnt the time to stand up for what you believe in and possibly lose your job. But then again there are many American supers who dont believe in anything but a paycheck, lacking a passion for what they do. They might as well be managing the grounds for a park or a cemetery. Its really really sad when you think about it....how much the American golf industry is in the crapper. How Owners and members who barely know what a aerification does.....that rule supreme over the industry. I find fault alot with the idiots who attempt to steer the ship. But I find ALOT more fault with the supers who are UNABLE or UNWILLING to attempt a line of communication. I find ALOT of fault with supers who refuse to think forward and make an attempt to incorporate sustainable and more environmentally management practices. I think this thread has approximately demonstrated where the industry stands. In general....it will still continue to keep on doing what it has always been doing. The turf industry will continue to rely on pesticides as the first and only option. And I still truly believe we are a generation away from alternative organic alternatives become the norm and not the exception. The biggest reason we havent seen American supers criticizing UK or other foreign management practices is because they understand the foundations of not overwatering. Not breaking out the pesticides....and providing firm and fast conditions. Now before someone jumps my back over that statement...I fully understand the differences in climate and how that affects management practices. I would never say that Primo should be banned. I would never say that Kansas City, the Mid Atlantic or deep south should be deprived of chemicals that fight pythium. But to be on a preventative program to fight dollar spot, yellow patch, brown patch....? Especially when you barely have a single sign of any!?!? I dont believe that their is a course that can be organic. I believe in a course that has a super that is attempting to help and make a difference in his own micro-environment and everyone elses macro-environment. Carl at The Vineyards is the exception and the extreme. He is TRULY organic. And we all know that is an unreasonable standard to uphold across the board. Its all about REDUCTION. Doing your part to REDUCE and RECYCLE. Unfortunately that hasnt caught on so much in the turf industry compared to the rest of the world. Its about time we get our head out of our asses and start thinking forward instead of sideways and backwards. In my book...the guys that are supporting preventitive pesticide use on this thread ARE thinking sideways and backwards.




Bradley,

I could care less about a spray rig running everyday on a golf course. You know why??? Because one the the greatest things about a golf course....or any given open expanse of green space.....is that it filters the carbon dioxide spewn out by petroleum ran engines. You are trying your best in this thread to support and defend an ABSOLUTE NEGATIVE. And that is hard to do. You have no defense when it comes to NOT EVEN CONSIDERING alternatives.

If you are SO CONCERNED about carbon emissions as a way to make yourself feel better about not trying to go a bit greener over the fact that you promote Preventative and sometimes unnecessary pesticide applications......have you even done the research into what the turf and ag industry puts down into the ground as far as pesticides? Have you done your research as to how much of a carbon footprint is being left if a spray rig is being ran versus how much carbon the golf course filters? A spray rig doesnt even compare to what a golf course does as far as how many pounds of carbon are emmited versus how many are filtered. In a carbon sense....that makes golf courses sustainable. When you are buying hundreds of jugs a year that are used once to deliver pesticides that are applied....is the golf course just soaking up the pesticides and processing them in the plant so they disappear? NO WAY. The average super is using hundreds of single use plastics a year to deliver pesticides that get sprayed, absorbed, leached and clipped in mowings only to end up in dumps that they dont compost.....nor do the average super recycle the jugs. So a golf course that filters carbon emmissions is leaving a larger carbon footprint than unrecycled plastic jugs and toxic residues in the environment? OK, maybe Ill have to take your word on that one and trust your sources.

And if you are trying to tell me that your spray rig only gets fired up every 10 days or so to spray fungicides....you might as well try to tell me that crude oil is as natural as the ocean itself like Rush Limbaugh. Unless you perform a miracle in the midwest of applying EVERYTHING you need to apply to your golf course in a single days worth of spraying....I dont believe it for a second. You have greens, approaches, fairways and tees that all get sprayed with different substances that are meant to be sprayed in different modes of action. Its not uncommon for an average club to have the spray rig and its dedicated spray technician going out almost everyday to spray SOMETHING. I use organics, I make and use compost tea. There is NOTHING about it that requires an application on the same area day after day. So go ahead and please tell us that all you spray is a fungicide every 10 days.....and because of so....you are so concerned about your carbon emissions and the fact that you leave less of a carbon footprint. You may need to reanalyze and gain a newfound perspective on how toxic the pesticides you are soooo comfortable with actually are to the environment.



ps....

......as I was about to post this you posted your post below. How ignorant are you really to make assumptions about someone who has a picture of Bob Marley as an avatar on a golf forum to make claims that they are a pot smoking advocate from Europe??? You need to get a grip man.....or at least get out of your khakis and the mid west for a minute. You dont even know who Jon is and you are slandering him as a pot smoking advocate on a public forum? As a fellow professional who is only in a debate about trying to be environmentally friendlier?


The fact is Bradley....no one cares that you have the TITLE "superintendent" with your name. That doesnt entitle a free pass. And American superintendents SHOULD and DO HAVE TO justify their management practices.....whether or not its a "pot smoking advocate from Europe". You keep trying to defend a negative and continue to juke and jive hard questions. You have comfortably demonstrated that you are not a true steward to the environment and that my friend is the true essence behind the title. I mean really? You've got nothing so you have to get personal and call out someone that you have no clue about who they are?  

[Bradley Anderson]

Ian,

As long as we are name calling, lets just say that you are the Judas of our profession. You have made a hobby of coming on here and shamelessly backstabbing your peers. If anyone actually reads your long diatribes they should be able see right through that.

As far Jon is concerned I am merely pointing out that it is not morally consistent to take a position that chemcials are bad for golf courses but good for the human mind and body. And I would challenge anyone to show me where an American superintendent has been critical of the greenkeeping methods in Europe. I am sure that they have a unique set of challenges there that we do not understand, and with that you will not find us calling on them to justify their practices.

[Ian Larson]

Bradley,

I call it like it is. Even if its the peers you "claim" I have shamelessly backstabbed that have given you the position you are in now and because of that you are undyingly loyal to, wether or not you have worked for them. I dont kiss ass and I dont sugar coat things. Bad turf management is bad turf management. Bad crew management is bad crew management. Especially when its from neglect and ill-communication to staff below and employers above. I love this profession and this game whether you want to label me as a "Judas" or not. You began getting personal by calling Jon a "pot smoking advocate from Europe" based off of a picture. You dont even know him. Its not all about you and your title. A "superintendent" can be a "bad" superintendent. Good superintendents lead and communicate and take initiatives to be friendly to the environment. They dont hide in the office and criticize architects and throw out pesticides to be glamorized in trade magazines as being "retired". If Im a "Judas" because Im a straight shooter, then you are a "judas" for not taking any initiative in becoming eco-friendlier in your management and shamelessly personally going after those who are, without having the facts about something you've never attempted. Go ahead and come after me on a personal level if you wish with your henchmen. Im nobody, dont expect to be. But you and others are supposed to be, and youre not demonstrating that on so many levels. One thing is for certain, I will always ask the hard questions and make you guys think and react. Regardless of your title.

On that note Ive got dawn patrol at first point in Malibu....bash away!

[Jon Wiggett]

Ian,

there are many different types of people reading this site and some of them are quite young. The langauge you and Brad have used in the last few posts is appalling. Would you use such langauge when talking to a 9 year old child or one of your members? I would hope not and you would both be well advised to think again before using such langauge in future. It is a shame because your posts are very often informative and a good read.

Brad,

maybe I chose this picture because I like his music. What does yours say about you?

I have at no time made any negative remarks about american greenkeepers or their methods. I simply asked you a simple question and judging by the manner of your response you obviously do not have any worthwhile comment or answers on it. One thing I can say is that you are thankfully not typical of the american greenkeepers I have had the fortune to meet as they have been both knowledgable and courteous where as you are quite plainly neither

Jon

[Ian Larson]

Ian,

there are many different types of people reading this site and some of them are quite young. The langauge you and Brad have used in the last few posts is appalling. Would you use such langauge when talking to a 9 year old child or one of your members? I would hope not and you would both be well advised to think again before using such langauge in future. It is a shame because your posts are very often informative and a good read.

Brad,

maybe I chose this picture because I like his music. What does yours say about you?

I have at no time made any negative remarks about american greenkeepers or their methods. I simply asked you a simple question and judging by the manner of your response you obviously do not have any worthwhile comment or answers on it. One thing I can say is that you are thankfully not typical of the american greenkeepers I have had the fortune to meet as they have been both knowledgable and courteous where as you are quite plainly neither

Jon

Jon,

You're right. Its been edited to PG rated. It was the 18 year scotch that fueled me into the wee hours of the morning writing about something im passionate about. The Bob Marley thing was one of the most ridiculous things Ive heard. If Bradley really believes what he is saying and that was a valid point with that he must only listen to christian music himself and acts like Jon Lithgow in "Footloose".



Bradley,

Your perception to pesticides is skewed by what your profession is. I said before that there is no "basic" fungicide. Its all toxic. To humans and to the environment.

You made this statement earlier....

"Now answer for me how that is better for the environment than spraying a fungicide, every 10 days or so, that has passed through millions of dollars of testing to receive EPA registration?"

I just hope that as a respected superintendent in the industry you begin doing some research into what your spraying and at what frequency. I hope that before your career is over you begin mentoring the young guys how to first address management practices so that pesticides can be used at the bare minimum instead of just the opposite. The young guys coming up under you are the ones that are the future of the industry and the SPRAY SPRAY SPRAY method is going to be as stylish and accepted as DDT and Mercury used to be. There are organic alternatives that work and have been tested that do not require applications everyday, if the industry leaders continue to turn a blind eye to them the toxic status quo will only get worse. Hurting the environment and families more and more.

Just because a chemical has an EPA registration number does NOT mean that it is safe nor should it be so lovingly referred to as "basic". The EPA itself admits that they have done a poor job with testing chemicals.

The EPA has tested only 200 out of 80,000 potentially toxic chemicals.

by Nick
(Montreal)

In an excellent article in the Philadelphia Inquirer today, Sandy Bauers gives an account of the current state of play when it comes to government responses to public concerns about toxic chemicals.

Here is an interesting quote from what she wrote:

"In December, Environmental Protection Agency adminstrator Lisa P. Jackson gave chilling testimony before the Senate committee on environment and public works. She said that while it's the EPA's job to ensure that chemicals used in products are safe, "under existing law, we cannot give that assurance."

Of the 80,000 chemicals used in the United States, the agency has been able to require testing on only about 200 and limited use of only five. "We've only been able to regulate a handful of chemicals, and we know very little about the rest," Jackson said."

It is sobering and terrifying to know that there are 79,800 chemicals out there which have yet to be tested for safety. It is equally disturbing to recognize that most of those chemicals will probably never be tested.

Kudos to Ms. Jackson for being upfront and honest about what the EPA has done, and not done. But...are we meant to sleep soundly in the knowledge that there are tens of thousands of chemicals being used by industry, almost none of which have been tested for safety?

It's time for lawmakers to give the EPA the teeth and authority to do its job.
[/i]

The turf industry needs to get its act together as whole. And nobody is a Judas to the profession for shedding light on what is wrong. What is wrong is the guys in the industry painting the picture to the public that everything they do is ok just because they have a title and a budget with authority over a crew and their club. A superintendent putting up some bird boxes doesn't make him a steward to the environment. Its about embracing everything about what can be done in an operation to reduce and reuse. American supers as a whole are "antibiotic" with their management. The more chemicals that are sprayed the quicker the time will come that a paradigm shift to "probiotic" will have to be made. Just like petroleum to renewable energy.

[Richard Choi]

I am personally finding this thread fascinating and very happy to learn more about things that supers do.

However, I really don't think anyone needs to bring up useless "fact" about how "only 200" chemicals have been tested safe. That is like saying only 200 food recipes have been tested safe while there are hundreds of thousands of food recipes that have never been proven safe. Does that mean that you should never try new food recipes or go to new restaurants? Of course not.

The fact is most "chemicals" are derivatives of natural products (like OIL! It is NATURAL! Mercury is natural too!). They usually don't have to be tested to be safe because most of the ingredients have already been proven safe in typical usage. Just because they get mixed with different ingredients and become a "new" chemical, does not necessarily mean they are harmful and toxic. It does not mean that they are proven safe, but they are not proven to be harmful to humans in typcial quantities either. So let's go easy on the fearmongering, please.

[Ian Larson]

I am personally finding this thread fascinating and very happy to learn more about things that supers do.

However, I really don't think anyone needs to bring up useless "fact" about how "only 200" chemicals have been tested safe. That is like saying only 200 food recipes have been tested safe while there are hundreds of thousands of food recipes that have never been proven safe. Does that mean that you should never try new food recipes or go to new restaurants? Of course not.

The fact is most "chemicals" are derivatives of natural products (like OIL! It is NATURAL! Mercury is natural too!). They usually don't have to be tested to be safe because most of the ingredients have already been proven safe in typical usage. Just because they get mixed with different ingredients and become a "new" chemical, does not necessarily mean they are harmful and toxic. It does not mean that they are proven safe, but they are not proven to be harmful to humans in typcial quantities either. So let's go easy on the fearmongering, please.

You have got to be kidding me. Either you are completely joking and acting like Rush Limbaugh or you dont understand the process of manufacturing synthetic complex compounds. They dont just MIX naturally occurring substances and poof, you have a toxic chemical. Oil and Mercury ARE natural meaning native to our Earth. But that in no way shape or form means that its ok for human exposure. Pesticides are processed. Processed FOODS arent even good for you so how could processed chemicals be safe? The pesticides are processed to break apart and rebond certain molecules which makes them completely alien to the Earth and to humans. I REALLY hope that post was a joke. Its not fear mongering when an increase in symptoms keep occurring year after year and the actual Head of the EPA is pointing out its own weakness.

[Ian Larson]

From what I understand thousands of chemicals were grandfathered into TSCA. The Toxic Substance Control Act.

http://www.epa.gov/oppt/tsca8e/


It seems kinda weird that the same companies that profit from the chemical they produce are policing themselves with what they report.

[Richard Choi]

Ian, I am a certified flaming liberal, and my friends would be pretty amused to find that anyone would label me as a Rush listener.

However, I do have engineering background and took several levels of chemistry courses including organic chemistry and materials engineering courses, so I think I have at least a decent understanding of the processes involved.

Cooking is really a chemistry experiment. You are mixing different ingredients and changing their chemical structure either through applying heat or through chemical reactions. If you are saying that every recombination of known chemical ingredients must be tested for safety, you should start with every food recipe out there as they are changing chemical compounds in a totally new manner. At least we don't ingest herbicides directly like we do with food.

Just because you are mixing inorganics instead of organics does not mean that every combination of known ingredient is somehow going to be extra toxic. And there is no scientific ways to find out anything is completely safe, many chemical compounds that were originally thought to be safe turned out to be harmful in certain combinations or over a very long time.

For all you know that steak you are eating is FAR more harmful than any residue herbicide you are going to ingest. You have no proof to say either way.

So, let's stop with the fear-mongering. It doesn't help anyone.

[Ian Larson]

So if oil is natural, why is the media "fear mongering" over the oil spill in the Gulf? Its natural, right? There is no way to scientifically know that being exposed to oil like that is hazardous? Should we marinate our steaks in the Gulf oil spill? or some 30 weight out in the garage?

If you can prove that synthetic, complex compound chains are good/unharmful for the environment you might have a chance to make your point. But the reality is that all signs indicate just the opposite. Toxic chemicals are more than a hunch when it comes to their toxicity.

[Jon Wiggett]

Ian, I am a certified flaming liberal, and my friends would be pretty amused to find that anyone would label me as a Rush listener.

However, I do have engineering background and took several levels of chemistry courses including organic chemistry and materials engineering courses, so I think I have at least a decent understanding of the processes involved.

Cooking is really a chemistry experiment. You are mixing different ingredients and changing their chemical structure either through applying heat or through chemical reactions. If you are saying that every recombination of known chemical ingredients must be tested for safety, you should start with every food recipe out there as they are changing chemical compounds in a totally new manner. At least we don't ingest herbicides directly like we do with food.

Richard, I think you will find that most food products are tested before being released on to the market. Also you argument seems to be if it is a naturally occuring substance then it is okay but this is not the case and this is why there are varying bands of toxicity with pesticides. The question you should address is not are the parts of this substance naturally occuring but rwther would you find them in this particular place and in these quantaties

Just because you are mixing inorganics instead of organics does not mean that every combination of known ingredient is somehow going to be extra toxic. And there is no scientific ways to find out anything is completely safe, many chemical compounds that were originally thought to be safe turned out to be harmful in certain combinations or over a very long time.

For all you know that steak you are eating is FAR more harmful than any residue herbicide you are going to ingest. You have no proof to say either way.

Again flawed thinking. There are several herbicide residues that are going to be considerably more harmful to you than the average steak. The reason why it is required that any person applying chemicals on a golf course wears a protective barrier is because of the possible side affects from contact or repeated contact with these substances

So, let's stop with the fear-mongering. It doesn't help anyone.

No, it does not. At the same time it seems to me wise to always be open to ideas and ways which may lessen the impact of what you do

[Steve Okula]

Ian,

there are many different types of people reading this site and some of them are quite young. The langauge you and Brad have used in the last few posts is appalling. Would you use such langauge when talking to a 9 year old child or one of your members? I would hope not and you would both be well advised to think again before using such langauge in future. It is a shame because your posts are very often informative and a good read.


Jon

Jon,

You're right. Its been edited to PG rated. It was the 18 year scotch that fueled me into the wee hours of the morning writing about something im passionate about.

That might be an explanation for all of your posts.

[Craig Sweet]

Just thought I'd comment on somwthing Ian said...there is scientific ways to show that exposure to the oil in the Gulf is harmful, and judging from the workers becoming ill (as well as those that worked on the Exxon Valdez clean up) it is a hazasrd.

[Bradley Anderson]

Jon,

What would it take to prove to you that American superintendents are "open minded" with respect to chemical
usage?

As I have already said, we do not spray either when we have wheather patterns that are like the ones in your part of the world. But when we enter into periods of high temperatures and humidity we spray fungicides. The products that we spray have been tested and proven to have no negative impact on the environment. Indeed a good case can be made for stating that the chemicals we spray are good for the envirnoment because turfgrass, when it is healthy, cleanses the atmosphere of excess Co2, controls sediment erosion into waterways, and filters groundwater contamination. If all commercial products for the health of turf grass were banned the environment would suffer greatly. The rivers, streams, and aquafiers would be contaminated with silt, and air quality would certainly be effected.

In the last several years we have had breakthroughs in our understanding of the control of phythium - in all but the most severe cases, most of us are getting control of that disease by simply reducing nitrogen and applying phosphite. Just in the last year we have made the switch to using a Grub control product, by Dupont, that is very safe, and it has no negative side effect on honey bees.

Personally I have tried a lot of different methods to control dollar spot without resorting to spraying a fungicide, e.g. dragging a hose to reduce dew formation, spraying light rates of urea every week, spraying bacteria. I am now experimenting with a natural compound called Civitas, and it does show great promise, but the problem is it turns the turf into an extremely dark shade of green. I have not tried composting yet, but I am considering it.

[Bradley Anderson]

Jon,

The other thing that I would add is that this is not the forum to provoke your fellow superintendents into justifying their management practices. Certainly you are aware that there are superintendent forums like turfnet etc? I don't know what you hope to accomplish by all these questions?

[Richard Choi]

Richard, I think you will find that most food products are tested before being released on to the market. Also you argument seems to be if it is a naturally occuring substance then it is okay but this is not the case and this is why there are varying bands of toxicity with pesticides. The question you should address is not are the parts of this substance naturally occuring but rwther would you find them in this particular place and in these quantaties

No, that is not what I am saying at all.

What I am saying is that many people believe that Natural=Good, Synthetic=Bad and they couldn't be more wrong. Just because something is "organic" or "natural" does not mean that you can use it without any restrictions, and just because something is a "chemical" does not mean that even small amounts do irrepairable damage.

And you are wrong that most food products are tested. At least in US, there is just too much quantity for there to be any meaningful testing. Which is why we regularly have people dying from contamination. Hell, you can sell any chemical you want as long as you label them as "health supplement" (and you can as long as they are derived from natural product). None of them are tested for their efficacy nor safety. You can put them on the market and they will stay there until somebody can prove that they are actually harmful. Consumer Digest has done several testing of "health supplements" in the past and found some pretty interesting stuff in them (chemicals, wrong active ingredients, etc.).

And this is for stuff that people ingest directly in the body. This is also the reason why I am just very skeptical about "you gotta test every chemical we use" argument. There are SO MANY stuff that you ingest directly that you are not testing right now, I see no reason why you would bother testing stuff that is so low level in your body. People are living longer and living healthier than ever. If there were some serious underlying problem with chemical usage, it would show up in more general data.

Again flawed thinking. There are several herbicide residues that are going to be considerably more harmful to you than the average steak. The reason why it is required that any person applying chemicals on a golf course wears a protective barrier is because of the possible side affects from contact or repeated contact with these substances

That depends. the level of those herbicide in a typical person's body is quite low, because people don't go out of their ways to ingest them. But when people grill their steaks, you create char which have been proven to cause cancer. And people eat FAR more charred steak than herbicide. So, how do you know that herbicide usage today is killing more people than steak is killing people through cancer, heart attackes (saturated fat), and general obecity? You don't.

What I am trying to say is that you should try to do everything in moderation. It does not matter if it is organic or synthetic. Just don't use them more than what is absolutely necessary.

[Jon Wiggett]

Bradley,

please would you show me where I have said or stated that American superintendents are not open minded. You won't be able to because I never have and your insistance in acusing me of this is becoming rather boring . You can also stop justifying your practices if you want, I have not nor ever will judge you on them. I will make it clear as I have already in previous posts 'I AM NOT AGAINST THE USE OF CHEMICALS'.

Jon,

The other thing that I would add is that this is not the forum to provoke your fellow superintendents into justifying their management practices. Certainly you are aware that there are superintendent forums like turfnet etc? I don't know what you hope to accomplish by all these questions?

I am aware of several other sites for greenkeeping matters but do not understand. I have however only commented on the specific topic raised by this thread which was started by someone other than myself. I have never commented on your maintainance practices nor required you to defend
them. The only question/request I have made of you on this thread is for your opinions on non chemical methods. Your paranoia is making you provocative.


It is nice to see you post something on the topic of this thread. Civitas is a product I have not heard about before and I will look into it.

Richard,

I am sorry that I misunderstood your meaning in your previous post. I agree there are too many people with the black and white belief that Natural=Good, Synthetic=Bad. This is however true for people stood on the other side of the fence. Certainly here in Europe food goes through many stringent safety and hygiene tests both in its production phase as well as the processing, packaging and storage to ensure it is safe to eat. I do find your stance of 'because it is not tested in one area why should bother testing for it in others' perplexing.

I would also completely agree with your last sentence.

Jon

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()