Sustainable golf - question #1

[Joe Hancock]

Household recycling; friend or foe? Our household produces 4-6 of the tubs that our refuse handler provides for recycling. I always ask myself though, is it worth the water that gets used to wash out containers before recycling? What about the fuels needed to transport and actually recycle said recyclables?

Water use: I struggle with this one, as it is the one resource that I believe recycles itself no matter what we do with it. It evaporates comes back as rain eventually. The real question is are we using fresh water quicker than the earth can naturally turn it around for our use again?

We need to do what we can.

Joe

[Peter Pallotta]

Where have you gone, Joe (Hancock) DiMaggio?

Well, actually, I know where you went -- glad to see you back safe and sound.

Best

Peter

[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.

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.

Pat and Brad

While what you say is true to a degree, there are many decisions and recommendations that are being made by supers that are most certainly contributing to the problem.

Many of the things that I have encountered supers doing, the golfing public or even course management wouldnt have a clue as to their purpose or even be aware that they are happening without it being pointed out directly. In my view, things like hand mowing tees and approaches and poa removal programs of tees and fairways, are way beyond necessary. Coupled with the use of the most expensive fertilisers and other latest and greatest chemicals, cost of course maintenance quickly spirals out of control.

There are many ways to reduce costs with sacrificing playability on a proportionate level. A lot of supers have become very narrow and isolated in their approach and views.

As I said, its much easier to lay blame on golfers/clubs for demanding these high levels of presentation. It wasnt the golfers who achieved these standards in the first place.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat and Brad

While what you say is true to a degree,
there are many decisions and recommendations that are being made by supers that are most certainly contributing to the problem.

Grant,

I don't see it as you do.

Superintendents are subject to a good deal of oversight, by Green Committees and Boards.
The level of scrutiny vis a vis the oversight structure is fairly high.

I don't see superintendents making recommendations and decisions without the informed consent of the Green Committee and Board.
In addition, I haven't come across rogue superintendents with tenure.

If an adverse practice is engaged in, there has to be acquiescence by the Green Committee and Board.

Many of the things that I have encountered supers doing, the golfing public or even course management wouldnt have a clue as to their purpose or even be aware that they are happening without it being pointed out directly.

That sounds hard to believe.
Could you list some of the things you've encountered ?

In my view, things like hand mowing tees and approaches and poa removal programs of tees and fairways, are way beyond necessary.


Tee size, configuration and location often dictate hand mowing.
Hand mowing approaches has become prevalent in recent years.
And, it would be difficult for that practice to go unnoticed.

I don't know what section of the country you're in, but, poa reduction isn't necessarily an evil, especially if it burns out in the summer.

Coupled with the use of the most expensive fertilisers and other latest and greatest chemicals, cost of course maintenance quickly spirals out of control.

That goes back to the budget and oversight again.
How do you know that the latest and greatests chemicals and fertilizers cost more than less effective chemicals and fertilizers ?

Nothing spirals out of control quickly........ over time.
You might have an unexpected spike, but I don't see runaway cost trends

Budgets are estimates not guarantees.
Mother Nature can F-Up almost any budget imaginable.

If a budget is spiraling out of control, those charged with governing the club are responsible.
An out of control budget, might be an acceptable trade off for the conditions desired.
Each club has to determine the product they want and the cost to maintain it.
Rarely, if ever, does a superintendent make those decisions unilaterally.

There are many ways to reduce costs with sacrificing playability on a proportionate level.

But, that's not a decision that resides with the superintendent.

A lot of supers have become very narrow and isolated in their approach and views.

I don't know about that.
Can you name ten (10) ?

And, even if you could, what does that say about the clubs' management and governance ?

The superintendent is an employee, an instrument of the membership, he provides the product he's directed to produce.
HE DOESN'T MAKE POLICY.

As I said, its much easier to lay blame on golfers/clubs for demanding these high levels of presentation.
It wasnt the golfers who achieved these standards in the first place.

OF COURSE IT WAS.
Superintendents didn't take it upon themselves, absent approval from the Green Committee, Board or dictator, to unilaterally decide what the playing conditions would be and how much money would be spent to achieve them.

You might be better served by sitting on a green committee and observing how the targeted product is determined, along with the budget intended to produce it.

It seems to me that you have an open ended axe to grind with Superintendents.

[Grant Saunders]

Patrick

I am a Superintendent.

I sit on a greens committee.

I implement and work with budgets.

I make my comments based on being in the industry approaching 18 years.

I stand by these comments.

Please detail your work history in the greenkeeping industry.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick

I am a Superintendent.

I sit on a greens committee.

I implement and work with budgets.

I make my comments based on being in the industry approaching 18 years.

How would you know and comprehend the machinations of green committees and boards at clubs other than your own ?

I stand by these comments.

Would you then identify the supers who have become narrow and isolated in their thinking ?

Would you identify clubs where their budgets are spiraling out of control at the direction of the superintendent ?

Please detail your work history in the greenkeeping industry.


My experience is limited to sitting on Green committees, beinh Chairman of Green and Renovation/Restoration committees and sitting on Boards at several clubs for over forty seven (47) years.

[Grant Saunders]

Patrick

I am a Superintendent.

I sit on a greens committee.

I implement and work with budgets.

I make my comments based on being in the industry approaching 18 years.

How would you know and comprehend the machinations of green committees and boards at clubs other than your own ?

I stand by these comments.

Would you then identify the supers who have become narrow and isolated in their thinking ?

Would you identify clubs where their budgets are spiraling out of control at the direction of the superintendent ?

Please detail your work history in the greenkeeping industry.


My experience is limited to sitting on Green committees, beinh Chairman of Green and Renovation/Restoration committees and sitting on Boards at several clubs for over forty seven (47) years.

Patrick

I am not going to name names in a public forum. For the record, they wont be people or clubs you are familier with so it becomes a pointless exercise.

If you feel you need me to name some people to somehow justify my opinions I am happy to do so in private.

I have been involved with several clubs so I am well aware of how others operate.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Grant,

It wouldn't serve anyone's best interest to name names, but, I just can't agree with your general condemnation of superintendents as the culprits or catalysts for the problems you perceive.

The ultimate authority and the funds lie with the club, the membership and the club's leaders, not the superintendents.

Superintendents can't spend money indiscriminately or carte blanche.

I know, when I was Chairman, as a policy, checks over a certain amount had to be countersigned by me as Chairman or another club officer I designated, in my absence.

I know that the Superintendent was NOT authorized to enter into contracts in excess of a rather low threshold, and that countersignatures, from me and another club officer were necessary when entering into contracts, and subject to review by the clubs inhouse, and often, retained outside counsel.

Now perhaps, I'm an advocate for a very disciplined, very controlled environment, one that others don't adopt or adhere to, but, in terms of fiscal responsibility, I just don't see the "rogue" superintendents that you portray.

Perhaps I'm naive or overly thorough, but, I can't imagine clubs that don't have similar internal and external controls when it comes to funds, contracts and decision making.

Where am I in error ?

[Grant Saunders]

PM Sent

[Bradley Anderson]

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.

Don,

This picture was taken in the Chicago area last week of a bent grass variety called Century.



If the dollar spot weather persisted another two weeks this variety would have been decimated. But other untreated varieties were free of dollar spot. My point being that the work of bent grass breeders has clearly given us varieties that have superior disease resistance. Here we have an inferior variety, but that's part of the process when you are striving to breed disease resistance in turf.

I think it is important that people understand that turf grass breeders have come a long way in providing plants that require less inputs and they continue to make advancements.

[Bradley Anderson]

Don,

I am not sure if you attended the GCSAA Convention in Las Vegas this year, but Dr. Rossi, from Cornell indicated that in this study there are several golf courses that have gone 7 years now on a simple urea program - no phosphorus or potassium.

I think it is unfair to say or imply that the turf schools are not committed to sustainability.

[Tom_Doak]

Bradley:

Frank Rossi does great work.  But he would laugh at your characterization of Cornell as "a turf school".  They have a great ag school [I'm a graduate], but they do not send very many graduates to superintendents' positions, like the programs at Penn State or Michigan State do.

[Bradley Anderson]

Tom,

I not as familiar with how many students are coming out of the Cornell program but I can definitely say that Dr. Rossi and the school are very respected by superintendents all over the country.

The state of Illinois has been served very well by two Cornell pathologists, one at Illinois State and another for many years with the CDGA, both very dedicated to sustainability.

[Grant Saunders]

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.

Don,

This picture was taken in the Chicago area last week of a bent grass variety called Century.




If the dollar spot weather persisted another two weeks this variety would have been decimated. But other untreated varieties were free of dollar spot. My point being that the work of bent grass breeders has clearly given us varieties that have superior disease resistance. Here we have an inferior variety, but that's part of the process when you are striving to breed disease resistance in turf.

I think it is important that people understand that turf grass breeders have come a long way in providing plants that require less inputs and they continue to make advancements.

Bradley

To me, this situation strengthens the argument for a poly culture.

The variety pictured, as you point out, is susceptible to dollar spot. If this variety was planted with other cultivars then the damage may not have been so severe. The other cultivars will no doubt have their own limits and susceptibility to other diseases which the one pictured may not.

[Bradley Anderson]

Grant,

There are NTEP nurseries all over the country where all of the new and old varieties are planted and tested in side by side plots for this kind of evaluation.  http://www.ntep.org/contents2.shtml

In addition many superintendents will test several varieties on their own turf nurseries.



If you want to add several varieties to a mix with the hope that one or more may be best adapted to your site you certainly may but you can also visit an NTEP site or your closest club/turf nursery and choose from the grasses that are best adapted to the conditions of your site and the expectations of your club.

How sustainable would it be if none of this kind of research were taking place? What would happen if you chose 5 grasses and all of them were dogs? Would you close the course and reseed? How sustainable would that be?

[Jon Wiggett]

To me it is clear that a poly-culture is more sustainable than a monoculture from an environmental point of view. Something that does occur to me however is that it all depends on priority of goals.

Is the maintenance program's main aim to:

a) produce the sward that gives the best average playing characteristics over the whole season or

b) produce a sward with the best visual characteristics over the whole season

Jon

[Bradley Anderson]

Jon,

I agree that a polystand has the edge especially in the rough. On tees and fairways there is some edge. However on greens I am not so sure.

Guys that have seeded greens with more than one variety of bent grass over the years are not reporting sustainability results much different from mono stands. I suspect that the first variety to germinate gets a head start on all the rest and it just becomes the predominate variety. And if by the luck of the draw that particular variety is the weakest then you haven't gained much by adding it to the mix. Why would you waste your employers money on something like that when you don't have to?

The putting green is all about ball roll and uniformity is an important quality. If you have several grasses on a green all with different traits then you are going to be doing a lot of unnecessary verticutting and brushing to get a smooth ball roll. So I don't think you have gained that much by seeding a bunch of varieties on greens. If you are setting up for a survival of the fittest situation, you would be better served to research all of that before your project rather than seed a bunch of varieties and then let them fight it out. Why would you put your golfers through that process of dead turf when you don't have to?

[Don_Mahaffey]

Bradley,
There are certainly some researchers at some schools who support sustainability. But, I still think it important to define, or at least try and explain, what sustainability really is.
Does Dr. Joe Vargas teach sustainability? Some would probably say yes, and he may as I do not know all his work. But, whenever I've listened to him I've always come away thinking he worked for the chemical industry. Maybe that's just my bias, but he seems to be a proponent of regular chemical use, and he is certainly a leader in turf education.  

Who sponsors research at our turf universities? USGA? GCSAA? PGA? They may fund some, but isn't most research funded by large industry vendors? As an example, who is going to pay for turf research that focuses on managing naturally occurring plant material grown in poly stands?

[Tom_Doak]

Jon,

I agree that a polystand has the edge especially in the rough. On tees and fairways there is some edge. However on greens I am not so sure.

Guys that have seeded greens with more than one variety of bent grass over the years are not reporting sustainability results much different from mono stands. I suspect that the first variety to germinate gets a head start on all the rest and it just becomes the predominate variety. And if by the luck of the draw that particular variety is the weakest then you haven't gained much by adding it to the mix. Why would you waste your employers money on something like that when you don't have to?

The putting green is all about ball roll and uniformity is an important quality. If you have several grasses on a green all with different traits then you are going to be doing a lot of unnecessary verticutting and brushing to get a smooth ball roll. So I don't think you have gained that much by seeding a bunch of varieties on greens. If you are setting up for a survival of the fittest situation, you would be better served to research all of that before your project rather than seed a bunch of varieties and then let them fight it out. Why would you put your golfers through that process of dead turf when you don't have to?

Bradley:

You are far more likely to wind up with "dead turf" if you choose a brand-new bentgrass for your greens than a blend of three grasses which have been around for 5-10 years without incident.  It's possible that one of the newer grasses will prove to be even better over the long haul, but generally I'd prefer to wait until they proved it.  Seed companies and university breeders tend to think the opposite way ... they sell their latest and greatest, and they sell them very hard.  (Maybe it has something to do with their patents.)

[Jon Wiggett]

Jon,

I agree that a polystand has the edge especially in the rough. On tees and fairways there is some edge. However on greens I am not so sure.

Guys that have seeded greens with more than one variety of bent grass over the years are not reporting sustainability results much different from mono stands. I suspect that the first variety to germinate gets a head start on all the rest and it just becomes the predominate variety. And if by the luck of the draw that particular variety is the weakest then you haven't gained much by adding it to the mix. Why would you waste your employers money on something like that when you don't have to?

The putting green is all about ball roll and uniformity is an important quality. If you have several grasses on a green all with different traits then you are going to be doing a lot of unnecessary verticutting and brushing to get a smooth ball roll. So I don't think you have gained that much by seeding a bunch of varieties on greens. If you are setting up for a survival of the fittest situation, you would be better served to research all of that before your project rather than seed a bunch of varieties and then let them fight it out. Why would you put your golfers through that process of dead turf when you don't have to?

Bradley,

with a poly-culture in my area I would be looking at a mix of Fescue, Bent & Meadow Grass (which comes by itself). This will give me a sustainable sward where the different grass types will out perform each other depending on the time of year and the climatic conditions. Through using an appropriate feed program it should be possible to produce a sward that allows a good rolling putting surface to develope and not need any chemical sprays for diseases. It is not that the sward will always be disease free but rather that any disease will not affect the sward to the extent that playing characteristics of the putting surface will be affected. Should one grass type be affected, one of the others should fill in the gaps.

However, the biggest point against a mono-stand for me is I have yet to see a course where the climatic conditions were the same across all areas of each green and from green to green. Shade from trees, high points caught by the wind, different facing slopes and sand cover splashed out of green side bunkers are but a few of the many conditions that can affect how a grass grows and despite many heralding this or that grass as the all singing, all dancing solution I have yet to see a grass that is adequate in all areas.

I do not see any need to extensively verticut (regular sanding usually suffices) and have had the experience that Agrostis palutris thatches up much worse. With a mono-culture you always run the risk of losing the whole stand at one go especially if running a chemical free maintenance program.

Don,

you are spot on with your take on the influence industry on development in the golf industry.

Jon

[Bradley Anderson]

Jon,

Assuming that you could get five grasses or so to germinate and grow in equal proportions on a green, which I don't think you can, there is a good chance that each of the five will exhibit at least one undesirable trait for at least one part of the season. So now your polystand has effectively built five problems to deal with into your green: e.g. one plant that is more susceptible to anthracnose in the heat, one that is more susceptible to dollar spot when it is dewey or humid, one plant that has a tendency to produce excess organic matter under the levels of fertility that are required to keep the anthracnose prone species healthy etc..

If however you have one species on a green, say A4, you will have a management system in place to deal with it's undesirable traits. You may need to be aggressive every one or two weeks with working sand top dressing in to a dense canopy, and you may have issues with wear on collars when it is hot. But on the plus side you will require very little water or fertilizer, you will have fairly good disease resistance, and if you have a membership that expects speed, you will use much less fuel for activities such as double cutting, rolling and hand watering to provide those conditions with A4.

Species selection has trade offs.

[Jon Wiggett]

Jon,

Assuming that you could get five grasses or so to germinate and grow in equal proportions on a green, which I don't think you can, there is a good chance that each of the five will exhibit at least one undesirable trait for at least one part of the season.

I never said 5 types or any number nor do I see any need to have all of them in equal mass. Indeed, part of my point is that some will favour certain areas which other do not and some will thrive at times of the season that others do not

So now your polystand has effectively built five problems to deal with into your green: e.g. one plant that is more susceptible to anthracnose in the heat, one that is more susceptible to dollar spot when it is dewey or humid, one plant that has a tendency to produce excess organic matter under the levels of fertility that are required to keep the anthracnose prone species healthy etc..

Correct, but if it only effects on type and the affected grass is not allowed to dominate the sward then one of the other grass types will fill in so this is not a problem. It is unlikely that you will end up with more grass been affected than not at any given time which is not the case with a mono-culture

If however you have one species on a green, say A4, you will have a management system in place to deal with it's undesirable traits.

But what happens if you get a disease that you can not control?

You may need to be aggressive every one or two weeks with working sand top dressing in to a dense canopy, and you may have issues with wear on collars when it is hot. But on the plus side you will require very little water or fertilizer, you will have fairly good disease resistance, and if you have a membership that expects speed, you will use much less fuel for activities such as double cutting, rolling and hand watering to provide those conditions with A4.

But the above might or might not be used with a mono or a poly culture depending on circumstances but is not an argument for having a mono culture

Species selection has trade offs.

In almost all things in nature, mono-culture/species is something that is susceptible to the danger of total loss or near there to. I am not saying that it is wrong to have a mono-culture nor that it is never the best solution but it does have certain dangers. I know that you are a knowledgeable greenkeeper and if discussing practices about maintaining swards in your climate/situation with someone else money I would probably defer to your opinion but if it were my own money then I would go with multiple strains and types of suitable grass

[Grant Saunders]

Jon,

I agree that a polystand has the edge especially in the rough. On tees and fairways there is some edge. However on greens I am not so sure.

Guys that have seeded greens with more than one variety of bent grass over the years are not reporting sustainability results much different from mono stands. I suspect that the first variety to germinate gets a head start on all the rest and it just becomes the predominate variety. And if by the luck of the draw that particular variety is the weakest then you haven't gained much by adding it to the mix. Why would you waste your employers money on something like that when you don't have to?

The putting green is all about ball roll and uniformity is an important quality. If you have several grasses on a green all with different traits then you are going to be doing a lot of unnecessary verticutting and brushing to get a smooth ball roll. So I don't think you have gained that much by seeding a bunch of varieties on greens. If you are setting up for a survival of the fittest situation, you would be better served to research all of that before your project rather than seed a bunch of varieties and then let them fight it out. Why would you put your golfers through that process of dead turf when you don't have to?

Bradley,

with a poly-culture in my area I would be looking at a mix of Fescue, Bent & Meadow Grass (which comes by itself). This will give me a sustainable sward where the different grass types will out perform each other depending on the time of year and the climatic conditions. Through using an appropriate feed program it should be possible to produce a sward that allows a good rolling putting surface to develope and not need any chemical sprays for diseases. It is not that the sward will always be disease free but rather that any disease will not affect the sward to the extent that playing characteristics of the putting surface will be affected. Should one grass type be affected, one of the others should fill in the gaps.

However, the biggest point against a mono-stand for me is I have yet to see a course where the climatic conditions were the same across all areas of each green and from green to green. Shade from trees, high points caught by the wind, different facing slopes and sand cover splashed out of green side bunkers are but a few of the many conditions that can affect how a grass grows and despite many heralding this or that grass as the all singing, all dancing solution I have yet to see a grass that is adequate in all areas.

I do not see any need to extensively verticut (regular sanding usually suffices) and have had the experience that Agrostis palutris thatches up much worse. With a mono-culture you always run the risk of losing the whole stand at one go especially if running a chemical free maintenance program.

Don,

you are spot on with your take on the influence industry on development in the golf industry.

Jon

Jon

Very good post on the benefits of the poly culture

Grant

[Bradley Anderson]

Jon,

Sorry, in my last comment I was speaking more to the concept of polystands on greens than I was to your specific grass species on your course or your greens.

I agree that polystands are very beneficial in the roughs, and to a lesser degree on fairways and tees.

But on greens I think a good mono stand selection should actually work the best to reduce inputs.

[Neil Noble]

Interesting discussion!  I view Sustainable Golf in 3 ways;
1). Economic
2). Development from agricultural input perspective
3). On-going maintenance inputs

In my definition... Development of a new golf course in a "Sustainable Method" involves basically everything from selecting the land through design into agronomics including; soil selection / preparations, grass selection, grading / drainage, irrigation design, and even the maintenance facility.  I have been involved with projects where the developer and architect think the process through as a whole and the result can be a golf course with healthy nutrient balanced soils, pest resistant / tolerant grass varieties, minimal point source pollution, and resource recycling designed into the site.  Surely this is the wave of the future and although you can spend a fortune on consultants, in reality there is not a lot of manditory expense just a lot more thought and collaberation.  I believe this is what will eventually happen at the Rio Olympic Golf Course once the "negotiations" are completed (can you really afford consultants on a $300,000 design fee).

Sustainable Golf Maintenance Practices in my view begin with what-ever situation you have today and is a continual process toward no pesticide use, water and other resource conservation and zero pollution "Organic" if you like (set aside for the moment the fact that the term Organic has been completely bastardized and has no real meaning  ))

Will many golf courses achieve what The Vineyard Club has in it's "Organic Operations"?  No! but there are a thousand degrees between how 99.9% of golf courses are maintained and this holy grail goal.  Monty Python's Holy Grail Quote: King Arthur: "I seek the bravest and the finest knights in the land who will join me in my court at Camelot."

Many golf superintendents talk about IPM and BMP's but from my experience few actually have a real (structured, implemented, documented) pest monitoring plan in use on a daily basis, and no driving around in your golf cart and calling your assistant when you see birds on # 4 tee box is not a real insect monitoring program.  Many people talk of water conservation but not many audit coverage, quantify how much they are really applying let alone investigate how evenly and how deep it penetrated, and how long it lasts before the grass really "needs" irrigation again. 

There are a plethora of steps that we can take in the golf maintenance operations that will move a course far along the "Sustainable" track toward the holy grail of "Organic" before even the most discerning golfer would notice a decrease in course conditioning.  I encourage everyone to implement these and a hundred other well thought-out actions that will return information to the golf superntendent and allow him to reduce inputs and conserve resources step by step.  Then stand on a soapbox and proclaim every success and enlist those around you to support what you are doing.  Like with Sustainable development; most of the work is cerebral and generally speaking it's free to think.