Sustainable golf - question #1

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jim,

My take is that sustainability is probably a bit easier in the south, but really, there are just challenges in every area.

As for Bradley's questions, I don't think there is a blanket answer as to what is sustainable, in this big continent (or in Europe, Asia, or Australia)  I think its very site specific.

There are many areas, like MN where water is plentiful, and is likely to never run out, as they are net losers of population.  In AZ, population grows, water is more scarce, etc. and the challenges become greater.  Just examples.  Plus, I saw a website the other day where they were talking about cutting back water use because there were water supply problems in Africa.  To me, that is really mixing up some messages!  Just because the economies of some third world nations haven't developed the infrastructure to deliver water isn't a reason for most of us to not play golf, is it?

That third world thing affects golf development.  Years ago, when I did a course in Indoesia, the muni water supply was very small.  We designed a gravity feed catchment system to capture the 100" of rainfall per year, although I heard the course was taking the city water anyway.  On the other hand, tourism was a great way for this little island to develop their economy further (along with $4 a day Nike shoe making) So, does the golf their contribute or take away from the lives of the locals?

For that matter, in small US towns water can be an issue.  At K State, the course water usage was nearly that of the whole town in hot summer months, although I don't recall the exact numbers.  Some areas are just harder to provide water (no wells in that part of KS) but there is no way a one size fits all national directive fits any enviro bill.

A complex issue, but I agree with those who figure the economics into sustainability.  Its only the wealthy countries that have been able to afford to even look at environmental sensitivity at least so far.

[Bradley Anderson]

In areas where you have high traffic you can beef up the strength of the turf by adding fertilizer and water to promote the bluegrass to outgrow the fescue.  

Bradley,

while I see where you are coming from isn't this going away from sustainable? Why not just spread the traffic and combat the wear problem through an aggressive aeration program. Even with the bluegrass you will still have compaction problems. I would however go with your suggestion if the bluegrass used was already on site or close by though then you might not need more fertiliser or water.

Jon

Jon,

What I like about a fescue/bluegrass blend in rough is it gives me control over the percentages of grass after establishment.

When the project is dirt you can't tell where all the wear patterns will show up once the golfers start playing it and driving carts on it. But after you turn them loose you can hit those areas with nitrogen three or four times and they will convert from fescue to bluegrass. Then you can let the bluegrass stand on it's own - it probably won't need liberal fertilization again, if ever. But it may need aeration to be sure, especially at the ends of cart paths. It all depends on soil types and rounds.
  
If however you seed the rough with a monostand you don't have this kind of flexibility.

Another thing I like about the fescue is you can skip mowing it for up the three weeks when it is dry. So if you have portions of rough that don't get a lot of traffic you can save a lot of mowing fuel if those areas are predominately fescue. And around bunkers and the base of trees, the fescue does not require frequent edging or line trimming as does bluegrass.

The fescue grass around the bunker below was not edged for an entire year. There is just a little bit of bluegrass in the blend but not enough to require monthly edging and trimming.



On the far right of this photo you can see an area of rough that gets little traffic and it has been kept predominately fescue. During this dry spell we went two weeks without cutting it. But the area in the middle left where the path begins is 100% bluegrass.

[Tim Liddy]

Sustainable golf is not defined by no maintenance. It is a different kind of maintenance, in concert with its natural environment, but still requiring maintenance - hopefully less maintenance from carbon based equipment.

[Tony Ristola]

Tony,

That was "The Holy Grail" that used coconuts...Patsy in particular.

But to Don's question: It comes down to a business question, really. When doing golf(design/ building/ remodeling/ operating) it all comes down to giving the customer what they want. Here in America, it has been a matter of aesthetics for a long time. While this fanatic group of golfers on GCA.com seems OK with polystands(at least with their online stated preferences), the general public most often prefer the monostand grassing methods. The golf course with pure bentgrass fairways and pure bluegrass roughs is certainly striking visually, but does it make the golf experience any better? Maybe so, if aesthetics are higher up the list than most would admit to, and certainly in this crowd.

The thing that happens with a polyculture(as Don is describing it) is that the plants that remain over time are sustainable...they've survived whatever the maintenance regime has encouraged. Survival of the fittest doesn't mean the original grasses survive always, but possibly subspecies of those plants, or even other grasses from other means is what remains. When maintaining a turf stand to keep it "pure" the maintenance is driven by those stands. Superintendents have a plethora of tools, and may stop at nothing to use them in order to keep those "pure" stands intact....after all, that's what was planted when the course was built, it must be what the original architect and superintendent had in mind, right?

I don't know, Don. Sustainability is a strange word in golf, because by very nature golf isn't really sustainable due to the huge amount of maintenance practices required. But, sustainability ought to be a principal by which golf (and all of us) operate....it's just a better way to go and almost always cheaper in the long run.

Joe

Joe... stand corrected; though I love Monty Python, I'm certainly not an expert! Did get the coconuts part right though 

I believe you could take most golfers onto a golf course, show them poa, tell them it's bent grass and they'd all nod approval. You could take them to a polystand, tell them it's a monostand and couldn't tell the difference.

What they can tell is if the grass is green or not.

[Rich Goodale]

I was exposed to and moderately involved in the "sustainable development" meme in the late 90's (when I was doing futures work for the Scottish Government), and as far as I can remember having seen it, the concept involved (in broader, i.e. global development terms) a NIMBY approach to any future developments, i.e. let the impoverished nations of the world develop, as long as long as Switzerland doesn't have to change its modus operandi to let them develop relative to Switzerland.  At this higher level it is a self-serving scam perpetuated by the developed "nations."  At the level of an individual golf course, it just local politiics.  Next time a councillor asks you if your golf course is "sustainalbe" and why, ask him or her the same question regarding his office complex, or even his or her home......

[Don_Mahaffey]

Obviously sustainability means different things to different people.
For me, it is not simple at all to determine what is sustainable, or who is actually practicing it vs simply using the term as a feel good marketing term.

On the other hand, when the context is sustainable golf, it may be as simple as doing it the right way... protecting the soil, promoting bio diversity, conserving water and energy, using biological pest programs, operating a workplace that promotes secure long term employment...etc...

I'm glad some took the time to address the question about mono stands vs poly stands. My personal beliefs are the agronomic advancements we've made in managing mono stands are not really advancements at all. To me its just simple chemical science that allows us to maintain perfect swards of turf. In nature, I don’t see much mono culture. There are probably examples I don't know about, but in simplistic terms, it would seem mono culture is non-sustainable if we are using nature as a barometer of what is lasting and what isn't. I see real agronomic advancement as the day when we learn to maintain a ploy stand throughout the course in a manner that is acceptable to the most discerning golfer. I believe we should be promoting bio diversity on our golf courses, not only in outer habitat areas but within our turf stands as well. Poly stands are not only good science, they also add interest to the game, beauty to our courses, and reduce inputs. Reconciliation Ecology is a term coined by Michael Rosenzweig in his book win-win ecology.
(www.winwinecology.com) Reconciliation Ecology is the science of inventing, establishing and maintaining new habitats to conserve species diversity in places where people live, work or play. If we are going to call our courses wildlife habitat and sustainable, I think we should consider the use of reconciliation ecology when establishing and maintaining our in play turf areas.

One other aspect I think about when I compare mono stands vs poly stands is the effect on design. I wonder if the extensive use and development of mono stands caused designers to do a little more then needed to create texture or variety. A poly stand looks different and may play different. If you are hitting a short bump and run type of chip and you have some different types of grass to negotiate, you’ve got challenge and interest simply with the turf in front of you. I realize most modern golfers would not welcome such a challenge, but I’m not talking about 6 inch tall grass, just short turf with different textures and growth habits. Playing a running shot through a poly stand may require a player to factor in a little more then just carry and roll. With a mono stand, none of those considerations come in and I wonder if designers don’t unknowingly “junk” things up a bit to add interest?



Very cool to see my good friend Joe Hancock enter in this discussion as Joe managed an awesome poly stand of turf at his course in Michigan.

On to question #2.

[Jon Wiggett]

Super answer Bradley,

thanks

Jon

[Bradley Anderson]

Don,

Let me address your concern about the agronomic advancements we've made in managing mono stands.

Historically speaking the earliest golf courses in America were propogated with seed that was collected from wild bent grass plants in south Germany.



As a species bent grass produces a seed stalk around 6 inches high. This presents real limitations for the species to cross pollinate or mutate after the seed is propogated to a putting green and managed at putting green heights - obviously much too low for the seed stalk to even develop. So those original polystand putting greens were never going to evolve or adapt to much more than the inherent traits that were harvested from the plants of origin.
 
Some of those wild plants produced admirable putting traits. If you were lucky you had sections of greens with fairly uniform creeping bent grass, but in many cases what you had were patchy greens with sparse colonies of the true creepers, some colonial bents and some velvet bent grass. All this variation of leaf texture was difficult to putt on, and it took years for the true creeping strains of grass on these greens to spread over the entire surface.

To add to the uniformity issues the supply of seed was difficult to control, especially during the war years. There were several unsuccessful attempts made at developing seed supply farms in America.



So the USGA Green Section worked very hard to solve the problems of quality and supply. Vegatative cuttings were taken from the best creeping grasses that were growing on greens all around the country. These were planted and laid out in rows at the Arlington Turf Gardens. The best varieties were then selected according to criteria that included leaf texture, shoot density, heat tolerance and disease resistance. Stolons (vegatative cuttings) were then made available from the best varieties to nurseries and clubs to spread on their greens.





The vegatative monostand varieties would serve the game well until the development of Penncross by H.B. Musser in 1954. Musser cross bred three strains of bentgrass from the USGA collection. Penncross was also bred to bare a seed crop for commercial production.


 
For three more decades a few of the vegatative strains remained in production, the most notable being Toronto C-15. When Toronto C-15 succumbed to a bacterial wilt in the early 1980’s the vegatative  method of propogating greens came to a close. Dr. Joe Duich, who studied under H.B. Musser at Penn State was already developing the next generation of bentgrass varieties, with special consideration given to varieites that could tolerate close mowing. Many of us who have been in the business now for over 25 years have seeded new greens with these varieties.

As a greenkeeper I am proud of the work that has been done to improve golf conditions. Many states have a turfgrass foundation that supports research through raising money to fund graduate students at turf colleges. This work is done by volunteers who get nothing for their efforts but to know that they have served the game and that they have made a difference.  

I think it is fair to say that the development of grass for golf in America has always been the work of people who truly care about what is best for the game and most sustainable.

[Don_Mahaffey]

Brad,
I understand turf pioneers were trying to find solutions to problems. I believe its our destiny to improve upon the work they did by learning what worked and being honest about what didn't. Just remember during the era of the photos you posted mercury was the pesticide of choice.

I hope when my son reaches my age he looks back and laughs at our attempt to dominate natural processes.

[Patrick_Mucci]

The word sustainable is everywhere. If anyone is building something, or making major organizational changes, or just touting their company thru press release, the chances of reading the word sustainable, or sustainability, is high.

I have a hard time with the never ending use of the word when applied to golf. I think if you look up the history of sustainable agriculture, you'll learn that sustainable principles have been around for decades, and to be truly operating or constructing a golf course using sustainable principles is not easy. But, what is sustainable golf? I'm not sure, but I am sure there are some who hang around here who know more about the subject, so I wanted to start a discussion.

Question 1.
Is planting a monoculture that requires water from off site and special chemical inputs to maintain the mono stand a sustainable practice?

Don, I think that's strictly a cost dependent issue.

Question 1 subset.
1. What's wrong with a poly culture? Why are we so adverse to a turf made up of multiple species? Research has shown that poly cultures are more disease resistant and create more bio diversity then a mono stand. Bio diversity is key to developing a sustainable biological pest control program.

Two responses:

A.   I had always been told that the poly-culture was far more expensive to maintain, under the assumption that the golfer desired consistent playing
       surfaces.
B.   TV and visual presentations, with the expectation that those conditions can be transported to one's home club for daily play would seem to
      conflict with the poly-culture you reference.
       
Do we care about sustainability, or do we really just want pretty grass?


Depends upon who you talk to.
For the average member, and/or the majority of members, I think "pretty grass" gets their vote and checkbook.
While some clubs have adopted "long range plans", I think most members confine their thinking to the coming or current golf season.
Few view the golf course in terms of long range sustainability.

Few concern themselves with the cost of water and chemicals.

For the last four or five weeks I've been seeing advertisements for The Masters.
Now, I love The Masters as a golf tournament and I love the golf course, but the presentation, the highlighting of the "Wow/Golfing Glitz" factor is enormous and very, very few viewers understand that the golf course is specifically prepped for four days in April, an ideal time in Augusta, GA, and that the course bears NO resemblance to that broadcast in Oct, Nov, Dec, Jan and Feb, and that the course closes shortly after the Masters.

So, they walk away thinking that their course should look like ANGC, not understanding all of the other factors, including how far an unlimited budget can go.

On the weekly telecasts of the PGA Tour, you see exotic mowing patterns, in the fairways, approaches, tees and greens.
Again, the viewer is led astray, partially by the unseen preparations, partially by the telecast and partially by their own ignorance.

So, combating the mono-culture is an uphill battle, a difficult educational battle.

It's only when clubs, predominantly dicatorial clubs, engage in practices that produce impressive results, that you get some local benefit, some positive fallout to the surrounding clubs.

Seminole strives to produce great playing surfaces.
The fairways can be yellowish, brownish, greenish and the membership embraces the playing conditions, not the color.
While I'm sure some want lush green conditions, they're not too vocal in their protests, and more likely, eventually become educated to the benefits of fast and firm, the color be damned.

I think Pine Tree does the same, albeit with a lesser quality soil/subsoil.

There are golf courses that are "player's" courses and there are courses that are "member's" courses and I universally favor the conditions at "player's" courses.

I think Seminole and Pine Tree are player's courses, although there are some elements at Pine Tree that want to soften the golf course because they believe that a kinder, gentler, less challenging golf course will attract more members.   I feel just the opposite.  Golfers want a challenging course.
Golfers want a ranked course, despite protests otherwise.

A top 100 ranking translates into member attraction, current or prospective.

End of rant 

 

[Grant Saunders]

Question 1.
Is planting a monoculture that requires water from off site and special chemical inputs to maintain the mono stand a sustainable practice?

Question 1 subset.
1. What's wrong with a poly culture? Why are we so adverse to a turf made up of multiple species? Research has shown that poly cultures are more disease resistant and create more bio diversity then a mono stand. Bio diversity is key to developing a sustainable biological pest control program.

Do we care about sustainability, or do we really just want pretty grass?  

Don

Great topic and certainly something that people need to get their heads around sooner rather than later.

I think that planting a monoculture anywhere but greens is a recipe for intensive and expensive maintenance in the long term. The necessary chemicals and practices required to maintain a surface outside of its ideal growing conditions coupled with unrealistic expectations are simply setting up an unachievable goal for the future. A poly culture is much more likely to contain grasses with differing strengths which in turn means that certain microclimates (defined as weather, wear, mowing height, climatic) on a course will determine which grass dominates under these conditions.

I will add that the grasses in the poly culture must be relatively complimentary. For example, browntop and fescue work well together. Rye grass and fescue dont share enough similarities to be managed easily based on growth habit and fertility requirements.

In terms of sustainability, this is going to vary based on each situation and resources at their disposal. For example, a course mowing fairways with triplex machines that reverts to 5 gang lightweight machines is increasing their sustainability. A course with a lightweight 5 gang mower that reverts to a trailed 7 gang unit is increasing their sustainability. There are many degrees of increase.

I feel that ecological or environmental sustainability is the real goal and something that is less measurable in a dollar value but carries a greater moral weight. This is where the reduced water and chemical inputs have the greatest long term benefits.

At the risk of being controversial, I think greenkeepers are the biggest culprits in the chase of perfection. Joe golfer wouldnt know a monostand from a his elbow. Greenkeeping has become hugely competitive with guys trying to grow better grass than the other guy. Its just another form of dick measuring.

Its always easy to place blame elsewhere but very difficult to wear it yourself.

[Kris Shreiner]

Don,

Thank you for raising this topic thread, your insights, and  that link to Reconciliation Ecology! Some powerful and thought-provoking stuff in there. While some might think this subject matter OT....it IS THE WAY FORWARD. We must preserve where we can, but thoughful adaptation and integrating practical methods to improve diversity of flora and fauna, coupled with creating and maintaining better quality ecosytems, ESPECIALLY those that have man's heavy hand involved...that to me is what "sustainability" really encompasses.

Cheers,
Kris

[JC Jones]

Don, Joe, others supporting sustainable golf maintenance:

Have you made changes in other areas of your life that reflect your philosophy towards golf courses?  For example, the way our society eats is completely unsustainable and incredibly harmful to the environment, more so than all of the golf courses combined.  Monoculture farming of corn, wheat, soy, etc. has depleted the top soil so much that we get 100 year floods more often than every 100 years and there are literally days in Iowa that you can't drink the tap water because those days are "fertilizer" days and the pollution to the water makes it toxic to drink.  There is a dead zone at the base of the Mississippi river due to all the chemical run off from the farms in the midwest.

All of this is done despite the evidence that poly-culture farming has significantly better yields.  It is, however, a bit harder to manage and in a world with incredibly cheap fossil fuels, we can make monoculture farming more "efficient." So while I agree with everything you've stated (posed), the issue is being fought on a much larger and more important front.

So, I support your sustainable philosophy on golf courses, I'm just wondering if you're eating a bag of doritos and a corn-fed steak while preaching it.

[Don_Mahaffey]

JC,
Shouldn't you be bringing action against the farmers who are polluting drinking water vs worrying about my diet?

I only control a micro fraction of the earth's ecosystem. Some would say, why bother.
I like the old enviro slogan, think globally, act locally. The act part is important. As is the education part. How many people in the country know it takes a gallon and a half of water to produce a small bottle of water? If we all just decide to not bother since we can't change the world, then don't we just keep heading down the same road? 

Golf in the future has a chance to help lead change. If we adopt sustainability and reconciliation ecology, we can show that the places humans recreate are also safe, healthy ecosystems that enrich natural process vs overcoming them. I realize most would consider that to be impossible, but I think it well with in our grasp if we are open to changing the status quo.

[Jim Nelson]

Here in the desert Southwest, green sells real estate.  Maybe not as much as 5 years ago, but most courses here overseed in the fall to keep the courses green all year.  Terrible waste really, but American golfers have come to expect it and will turn up their noses at dormant turf.  I am not sure how the golf community changes that perception, but golf is not natural in this environment.  I don't think it is going away soon, but we should try to use turf that does not need huge amounts of water and really should just do away with overseeding.  But the question remains, will it sell?

J

[JC Jones]

JC,
Shouldn't you be bringing action against the farmers who are polluting drinking water vs worrying about my diet?

I only control a micro fraction of the earth's ecosystem. Some would say, why bother.
I like the old enviro slogan, think globally, act locally. The act part is important. As is the education part. How many people in the country know it takes a gallon and a half of water to produce a small bottle of water? If we all just decide to not bother since we can't change the world, then don't we just keep heading down the same road? 

Golf in the future has a chance to help lead change. If we adopt sustainability and reconciliation ecology, we can show that the places humans recreate are also safe, healthy ecosystems that enrich natural process vs overcoming them. I realize most would consider that to be impossible, but I think it well with in our grasp if we are open to changing the status quo.

Don,

An action is difficult when the chemical companies have lobbied the government to determine the chemicals, "non-toxic."  I mean, nitrogen exists naturally, right?

I agree with everything you've said and people need to realize that how they spend their dollars matters much more than whomever they vote for.  And that was my point, we all need to become more educated on our externalities so we don't make comments like Benham or Jim Nelson made in the other threads.  One is of ignorance and the other is of indifference.  Now, some people will think that because it doesn't affect them it doesn't matter (i.e. Jim Nelson) and others will just "believe" we don't have any problems.  But, some will learn something and change their behavior. 

So think globally by eating, drinking, golfing, locally.  I look at my kids today and I am horrified by Jim Nelson's indifference because he won't have to internalize his externalities.

[Jim Nelson]

JC,
Shouldn't you be bringing action against the farmers who are polluting drinking water vs worrying about my diet?

I only control a micro fraction of the earth's ecosystem. Some would say, why bother.
I like the old enviro slogan, think globally, act locally. The act part is important. As is the education part. How many people in the country know it takes a gallon and a half of water to produce a small bottle of water? If we all just decide to not bother since we can't change the world, then don't we just keep heading down the same road? 

Golf in the future has a chance to help lead change. If we adopt sustainability and reconciliation ecology, we can show that the places humans recreate are also safe, healthy ecosystems that enrich natural process vs overcoming them. I realize most would consider that to be impossible, but I think it well with in our grasp if we are open to changing the status quo.

Don,

An action is difficult when the chemical companies have lobbied the government to determine the chemicals, "non-toxic."  I mean, nitrogen exists naturally, right?

I agree with everything you've said and people need to realize that how they spend their dollars matters much more than whomever they vote for.  And that was my point, we all need to become more educated on our externalities so we don't make comments like Benham or Jim Nelson made in the other threads.  One is of ignorance and the other is of indifference.  Now, some people will think that because it doesn't affect them it doesn't matter (i.e. Jim Nelson) and others will just "believe" we don't have any problems.  But, some will learn something and change their behavior. 

So think globally by eating, drinking, golfing, locally.  I look at my kids today and I am horrified by Jim Nelson's indifference because he won't have to internalize his externalities.

Don't know me well enough to make those comments.  Guess I should have used those little emoticons located above so you could understand nuance.  I'll take out my hammer next time. 

[Jim Nelson]

JC,
Shouldn't you be bringing action against the farmers who are polluting drinking water vs worrying about my diet?

I only control a micro fraction of the earth's ecosystem. Some would say, why bother.
I like the old enviro slogan, think globally, act locally. The act part is important. As is the education part. How many people in the country know it takes a gallon and a half of water to produce a small bottle of water? If we all just decide to not bother since we can't change the world, then don't we just keep heading down the same road? 

Golf in the future has a chance to help lead change. If we adopt sustainability and reconciliation ecology, we can show that the places humans recreate are also safe, healthy ecosystems that enrich natural process vs overcoming them. I realize most would consider that to be impossible, but I think it well with in our grasp if we are open to changing the status quo.

Don,

An action is difficult when the chemical companies have lobbied the government to determine the chemicals, "non-toxic."  I mean, nitrogen exists naturally, right?

I agree with everything you've said and people need to realize that how they spend their dollars matters much more than whomever they vote for.  And that was my point, we all need to become more educated on our externalities so we don't make comments like Benham or Jim Nelson made in the other threads.  One is of ignorance and the other is of indifference.  Now, some people will think that because it doesn't affect them it doesn't matter (i.e. Jim Nelson) and others will just "believe" we don't have any problems.  But, some will learn something and change their behavior. 

So think globally by eating, drinking, golfing, locally.  I look at my kids today and I am horrified by Jim Nelson's indifference because he won't have to internalize his externalities.

Don't know me well enough to make those comments.  Guess I should have used those little emoticons located above so you could understand nuance.  I'll take out my hammer next time. 

Just so we can keep this all on the up and up, here is what I said

"Well, thank goodness we have lots out there.  "Something like 326,000,000,000,000,000,000 gallons (326 million trillion gallons) of the stuff (roughly 1,260,000,000,000,000,000,000 liters) can be found on our planet."  Of course, most of it is salt.  But the same article made some reference to a couple of billion gallons of water sitting on the shelves of our refrigerators at any given time.

So as I sit here looking out at the desert golf course, sipping my bottled water, waiting for the sun to come up, the mowers criss-crossing the perfectly green fairways, I wonder.  Just how long will this all last?  There will come a time when the cost of keeping this whole area habitable will be so high that people begin to abandon the desert living concept.  When will Southern Highlands go back to desert?  In my lifetime?  Probably not.  My grandchildren? Likely.  Unless, that is, we radically change how we approach water and energy.

And BTW, the water bill here is over 1 M a year.

Good topic."

What about this is indifferent?  I recognize the contradiction, but clearly state that this use of land, water and energy is not sustainable unless we make huge changes.     Now I'm starting to use the little round, yellow guys.    Happy now? 

[JC Jones]

Jim,

My apologies for reading your comments the wrong way.  I'm thankful for your clarification.

[Jim Nelson]

Jim,

My apologies for reading your comments the wrong way.  I'm thankful for your clarification.

All's forgiven. 

[Kris Shreiner]

JC and Jim,

Very classy men! Your latest responses are the way we all should strive to conduct ourselves 'round here.

JC, you are right in asking if we walk the walk when it comes to trying to live life with a more careful footprint, and to think about what we are consuming and sadly, often wasting. None of us is perfect, but if we at least make some effort and take a liitle time once and a while to evaluate our "lifestyle"...surely we can find small ways to improve how we live.

Cheers,
Kris
 

[Brad Isaacs]

JC,
Shouldn't you be bringing action against the farmers who are polluting drinking water vs worrying about my diet?

I only control a micro fraction of the earth's ecosystem. Some would say, why bother.
I like the old enviro slogan, think globally, act locally. The act part is important. As is the education part. How many people in the country know it takes a gallon and a half of water to produce a small bottle of water? If we all just decide to not bother since we can't change the world, then don't we just keep heading down the same road? 

Golf in the future has a chance to help lead change. If we adopt sustainability and reconciliation ecology, we can show that the places humans recreate are also safe, healthy ecosystems that enrich natural process vs overcoming them. I realize most would consider that to be impossible, but I think it well with in our grasp if we are open to changing the status quo.

Don,

An action is difficult when the chemical companies have lobbied the government to determine the chemicals, "non-toxic."  I mean, nitrogen exists naturally, right?

I agree with everything you've said and people need to realize that how they spend their dollars matters much more than whomever they vote for.  And that was my point, we all need to become more educated on our externalities so we don't make comments like Benham or Jim Nelson made in the other threads.  One is of ignorance and the other is of indifference.  Now, some people will think that because it doesn't affect them it doesn't matter (i.e. Jim Nelson) and others will just "believe" we don't have any problems.  But, some will learn something and change their behavior. 

So think globally by eating, drinking, golfing, locally.  I look at my kids today and I am horrified by Jim Nelson's indifference because he won't have to internalize his externalities.

I knew it. Nellie (and please refer to him as such) is secretly a Cheney loving evil destroyer of the earth!  That front of the concerned individual about the future is all just talk. Nellie you have been outed. Admit how evil you are.  Game Sunday?
 

Brad

[Patrick_Mucci]

Question 1.
Is planting a monoculture that requires water from off site and special chemical inputs to maintain the mono stand a sustainable practice?

Question 1 subset.
1. What's wrong with a poly culture? Why are we so adverse to a turf made up of multiple species? Research has shown that poly cultures are more disease resistant and create more bio diversity then a mono stand. Bio diversity is key to developing a sustainable biological pest control program.

Do we care about sustainability, or do we really just want pretty grass?  

Don

Great topic and certainly something that people need to get their heads around sooner rather than later.

I think that planting a monoculture anywhere but greens is a recipe for intensive and expensive maintenance in the long term. The necessary chemicals and practices required to maintain a surface outside of its ideal growing conditions coupled with unrealistic expectations are simply setting up an unachievable goal for the future. A poly culture is much more likely to contain grasses with differing strengths which in turn means that certain microclimates (defined as weather, wear, mowing height, climatic) on a course will determine which grass dominates under these conditions.

I will add that the grasses in the poly culture must be relatively complimentary. For example, browntop and fescue work well together. Rye grass and fescue dont share enough similarities to be managed easily based on growth habit and fertility requirements.

In terms of sustainability, this is going to vary based on each situation and resources at their disposal. For example, a course mowing fairways with triplex machines that reverts to 5 gang lightweight machines is increasing their sustainability. A course with a lightweight 5 gang mower that reverts to a trailed 7 gang unit is increasing their sustainability. There are many degrees of increase.

I feel that ecological or environmental sustainability is the real goal and something that is less measurable in a dollar value but carries a greater moral weight. This is where the reduced water and chemical inputs have the greatest long term benefits.

At the risk of being controversial, I think greenkeepers are the biggest culprits in the chase of perfection. Joe golfer wouldnt know a monostand from a his elbow. Greenkeeping has become hugely competitive with guys trying to grow better grass than the other guy. Its just another form of dick measuring.

Its always easy to place blame elsewhere but very difficult to wear it yourself.

Grant,

Last I looked, Green Superintendents were "employees" and as such, if you take the King's schilling, you have to do the King's bidding.

Superintendents are merely an extension of the will or mandate of the membership, they CANNOT make unilateral decisions regarding the targeted product.

[Brad Isaacs]

Question 1.
Is planting a monoculture that requires water from off site and special chemical inputs to maintain the mono stand a sustainable practice?

Question 1 subset.
1. What's wrong with a poly culture? Why are we so adverse to a turf made up of multiple species? Research has shown that poly cultures are more disease resistant and create more bio diversity then a mono stand. Bio diversity is key to developing a sustainable biological pest control program.

Do we care about sustainability, or do we really just want pretty grass?  

Don

Great topic and certainly something that people need to get their heads around sooner rather than later.

I think that planting a monoculture anywhere but greens is a recipe for intensive and expensive maintenance in the long term. The necessary chemicals and practices required to maintain a surface outside of its ideal growing conditions coupled with unrealistic expectations are simply setting up an unachievable goal for the future. A poly culture is much more likely to contain grasses with differing strengths which in turn means that certain microclimates (defined as weather, wear, mowing height, climatic) on a course will determine which grass dominates under these conditions.

I will add that the grasses in the poly culture must be relatively complimentary. For example, browntop and fescue work well together. Rye grass and fescue dont share enough similarities to be managed easily based on growth habit and fertility requirements.

In terms of sustainability, this is going to vary based on each situation and resources at their disposal. For example, a course mowing fairways with triplex machines that reverts to 5 gang lightweight machines is increasing their sustainability. A course with a lightweight 5 gang mower that reverts to a trailed 7 gang unit is increasing their sustainability. There are many degrees of increase.

I feel that ecological or environmental sustainability is the real goal and something that is less measurable in a dollar value but carries a greater moral weight. This is where the reduced water and chemical inputs have the greatest long term benefits.

At the risk of being controversial, I think greenkeepers are the biggest culprits in the chase of perfection. Joe golfer wouldnt know a monostand from a his elbow. Greenkeeping has become hugely competitive with guys trying to grow better grass than the other guy. Its just another form of dick measuring.

Its always easy to place blame elsewhere but very difficult to wear it yourself.


Grant,

In my admittedly limited experience, I have found that the superintendents are the victims of their bosses. They are often asked to do the wrong thing for the grasses and then lose their job for doing what was asked of them. The mark of a great super might be one of effective education of his owner/ greens committee.(wOrst possible is the Cliff Roberts wanna be who really doesn't know what he is talking about) Maybe actually following the doctors advice would be beneficial for sustainability.

[Bradley Anderson]

http://turf.lib.msu.edu/gsr/article/nus-long-3-30-12.pdf

This is a good example of the kind of research data that we are getting from the turf schools.

The notion that the turf schools are all about teaching and promoting chemicals and fertilizers is unfair.