Maintenance: American versus Scottish approach?

[Martin Lehmann]

Last week I attended the annual meeting of the Dutch Golf Federation. An update was given on the so called 'Green Deal'. An agreement between the Dutch Government and the Golf Federation concerning a total ban on the use of chemicals on Dutch golf courses as off 2020 (similar developments are going on in other EU member states). The federation stipulated that we should say farewell to American style courses (artificial, overly manicured, heavy use of fertilizers and pesticides) and embrace traditional, Scottish style golf course (natural, in sink with seasonal changes and with what nature gives and takes). A bit stereotype in my opinion. Your thoughts on this matter?

[Kyle Harris]

I don't know what any of that means.

Water, for instance, is a chemical. Our atmosphere is composed of chemicals.

I guess it sounds good to some.

[Sean_A]

Its relatively easy to keep grass alive in countries such as the UK and Nederland because the weather is much more supportive than in many other places...so perhaps the rules should be more strict for these areas.  Not that the golf industry in general shouldn't learn to get on with less inputs, but in places with more extreme temperature ranges it is necessarily the case that more inputs are required.  Of course one could argue if golf is really sustainable (or perhaps more importantly a wise use of resources) in these climates, but that is a bit of a different question, the answer to which I am sure depends heavily on where one lives    I spose another approach is to be deliberately obtuse about the matter...its not helpful, but often the go to response.

Ciao

[Adam Lawrence]

This approach is coming across the EU before too long. It spells, in principle at least, bad news for people who have poa-dominated greens (ie the vast majority of courses). Poa can, as everyone knows, produce a pretty good surface, but it is highly dependent on inputs, notably fungicide. It is likely that there will be no fungicides at all available to golf courses in Europe in the not too distant future. Courses that have embarked on species transition programmes and have a higher proportion of fescue/bents in their sward are likely to be in a much stronger position.

[Kyle Harris]

Okay, serious question now:


Which are the regulating agencies that determine a chemical's usage as a fungicide vs. fertilizer vs. "bio-rational?"

Is ferrous sulfate for instance, in the first, middle, or last category?

[Steve Lang]

   Kyle, and others


better watch out... next you won't be able to pump any groundwater, there's iron and sulfate  and xxxx in it, my god we're all going to die....

[Adam Lawrence]

Okay, serious question now:

Which are the regulating agencies that determine a chemical's usage as a fungicide vs. fertilizer vs. "bio-rational?"

Is ferrous sulfate for instance, in the first, middle, or last category?

The regulating agency is the European Union. I don't know the answer to your second question but will find out. Meanwhile here is a blog article from Yelverton GC about how the changes are affecting them now:


https://www.yelvertongolf.co.uk/pesticide-restrictions.html

[Kyle Harris]

Okay, serious question now:

Which are the regulating agencies that determine a chemical's usage as a fungicide vs. fertilizer vs. "bio-rational?"

Is ferrous sulfate for instance, in the first, middle, or last category?

The regulating agency is the European Union. I don't know the answer to your second question but will find out. Meanwhile here is a blog article from Yelverton GC about how the changes are affecting them now:


https://www.yelvertongolf.co.uk/pesticide-restrictions.html

Thanks Adam,


Conversations like these have great potential but all-too-often are dragged into the mire of whichever political soundbite sounds best.


I appreciate the concise way Yelverton goes about explaining the process of restrictions. Ideally, we develop chemistry that meets the Safety Standards set forth by the EU.

[Adam Lawrence]

Gordon Irvine, my go-to source for this kind of thing, tells me that ferrous sulphate is 'ok for now, but things change quickly' and that it is classified as a fertiliser.

[Peter Pallotta]

In sync with seasonal changes: strange to think that, with the food we eat as much as the golf courses we play, it's become an ambitious goal instead of the simple reality.

[Thomas Dai]

Is there a difference between ‘Scottish’ maintenance and English/Welsh/Irish?
Atb

[Bruce Katona]

Given the difference in climates, I have to think about anyone here on GCA could grow grass in The Netherlands or the UK, its certainly moist enough.


The wing nuts who are looking to regulate everything on the left coast of the US will push for "no-chemical golf courses"(water excluded) in the spirit of protecting the threatened and endangered yellow bellied farting tree frog soon enough.  Hard to believe but it actually costs real money to apply fertilizer and fungicides/pesticides; the healthier and less stressed the turf grass, the less chemicals are required, thus a positive impact to the bottom line..........but the folks who will look to save said flatulent tree frog may also not be worried much about attempting to turn a profit in the business of golf.   

[Jon Wiggett]

Martin,


Denmark has had a ban on the use of herbicides and pesticides for quite a few years now and as Adam mentioned it was the poa annua which was the main concern but they seem to have adjusted quite well. What it does mean however is not being able to stress the sward nearly as much as most do with chemical support so cutting heights need to be raised and extremely careful feed management especially at the start and end of the season.


The positive effect which this could have on GCA is that with slower green speeds golfers, clubs and architects might start to go back to using contours as the primary way to create a challenge for the player.


Jon

[Jeff Schley]

We talked about such an issue in this thread: http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,65459.msg1561592.html#msg1561592

Where water issues were going to jump to the forefront of golf course sustainability discussion, had the US not withdrawn from the Paris Climate Accords, for it would have forced governmental regulations.  It can still do this in other countries, but the lack of groundwater and water rites in drought prone environments are real issues that will results in lawsuits and policy decision in the next 10 years certainly.  A threat to golf course sustainability for those courses with intensive water needs.

[Duncan Cheslett]

This approach is coming across the EU before too long. It spells, in principle at least, bad news for people who have poa-dominated greens (ie the vast majority of courses). Poa can, as everyone knows, produce a pretty good surface, but it is highly dependent on inputs, notably fungicide. It is likely that there will be no fungicides at all available to golf courses in Europe in the not too distant future. Courses that have embarked on species transition programmes and have a higher proportion of fescue/bents in their sward are likely to be in a much stronger position.

I agree entirely Adam.


I see most courses in our area struggling with wet predominantly poa greens that are full of thatch and prone to fuserium infection. Many courses are to all intents and purposes unplayable for 6 months of the year and we hear stories of greenkeepers at their wits' ends with no idea what to do other than endless aeration to little effect.  Clubs are throwing money they don't have at drainage solutions when they could probably achieve far more by chopping down a few hundred trees and allowing some air and light to their grass. Tree felling of course, is unthinkable to most club members!


Our head greenkeeper meanwhile, takes a lot of flak from his local contemporaries by his "wacky" insistence on using only organic products and encouraging microbial activity.


The results speak for themselves. In five years our greens have gone from 90% poa to 50% bent/fescue. He aims to reduce poa to an absolute minimum over the next five years. Thatch has been almost completely eliminated as a problem both on greens and fairways with minimum chemical intervention - simply encouraging the environment whereby organic matter is broken down by the microbes in the soil.


This year, while other courses are punching huge holes in their greens in a desperate effort to get them ready for the season, Nick has decided that no aeration is necessary at all until July, and the greens are in immaculate condition.


I can't speak for other climates, but in the damp north west of England the "Scottish Approach" certainly pays dividends.

[Marty Bonnar]

With about 180 golf courses with, let’s say 100 acres each of maintained grass, I can’t see how golf in Holland will make much of a difference by not using fertilisers and pesticides.
What would be way more useful would be to get farmers and gardeners to stop using glyphosate and to reduce nitrate runoff from fields. Agriculture and commercial horticulture are much bigger villains in this than golf courses. Kill the tulips, I say!

Every little helps I suppose...
F.


PS I’m not sure there’s such a thing as a ‘Scottish’ approach, unless we’re simply talking frugality...

[Thomas Dai]

Water is going to be key, admittedly in some parts of the world more so than others, especially as the worlds population increases. Would you rather irrigate a golf course or have drink of water when you’re thirsty or water your crops for stave off your families hunger?
Atb

[Jon Wiggett]

With about 180 golf courses with, let’s say 100 acres each of maintained grass, I can’t see how golf in Holland will make much of a difference by not using fertilisers and pesticides.
What would be way more useful would be to get farmers and gardeners to stop using glyphosate and to reduce nitrate runoff from fields. Agriculture and commercial horticulture are much bigger villains in this than golf courses. Kill the tulips, I say!

Every little helps I suppose...
F.


PS I’m not sure there’s such a thing as a ‘Scottish’ approach, unless we’re simply talking frugality...

Marty,


most of this legislation is being implemented in the agricultural sector and sports/recreational is being lumped in to the same group. They are not banning all feed, just certain types. The EU has been serious about this whole issue for a long time so it should come as no surprise to the golfing sector. It does have the benefit of being cheaper.


Duncan,


I really need to get across and see RV next time I am down. In regards to drainage, one of the biggest mistakes made in my opinion is that clubs rarely put it in deep enough with most thinking 18" is deep enough. It should be in as deep as you can get it but at least 4 foot. Slitting and spiking are equally as effective a hollo-tining but far less disruptive.

[Niall C]

Duncan

Interesting to hear your comments on Reddish Vale and while in no way qualified to make comment, that sort of thing has never stopped  me before so here goes 

In terms of tree clearing, I agree and disagree. A lot of UK courses are reaping what they sowed 30 or 40 years ago with all the tree planting. You still see young trees being planted now and you wonder if anyone has ever stopped to consider that when the tree reaches maturity how far into the fairway the canopy will go. So in that respect I agree with you.

Where I think I disagree is that I can see a movement being started, similar to what's happening on links courses with the clearing away of a lot of gorse, where initially trees will have to be removed from a playability perspective and then gradually clubs will see the benefit in terms of agronomy and do more of it. Other clubs will see what happened and will follow suit and eventually tree clearing will become the orthodox approach.

I can quite easily see that happening over the next 10-20 years.

Niall   

[Thomas Dai]

It’s not just trees planted in years/decades gone by that are the issue.
Worse in many ways are the self seeders that have been allowed to sprout and then grow and grow and grow. Nip them at the start and they don’t grow up and become an issue.
One of the reasons why, where carnivore critters aren’t around to eat them, that sheep and cattle etc should be grazing more courses. And goats are great for removing scrub and brush and the like.
Atb

[Lou_Duran]

Despite being so incredibly wrong, Malthus lives on in the hearts of so many otherwise smart, educated people.  Perhaps the following link to a current Wall Street Journal article might persuade those fixed-pie believers to think a bit more broadly.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-population-bomb-was-a-dud-1525125341

Re: the scarcity of water and prioritizing human use/food production over irrigating turf grass, CA, the laboratory of "progressives", has determined that tiny fish species and other such critters are far more important than agriculture, resource development, and golf.   With all the dire predictions of "climate change" and rising sea levels, perhaps we can marry those fears to the promised benefits and increased efficiencies of solar and wind energy to desalinate some of the excess and irrigate our parched lands- all made possible by the promised technological advancements and "smart growth" in the green revolution.

Perhaps my training in science is not up to par.  I was under the impression that trees were highly beneficial in absorbing that evil CO2 which some of our leaders claim is far more threatening to the world than ISIS, North Korea, Iran, and, yes, even The Russians.  Most carbon tax schemes I am aware of include provisions to purchase offsets by investing in planting trees.   I can understand why the golf industry is joining the water scarcity movement, but why is de-foresting golf courses now in vogue?  Aren't those trees adding beauty and challenge while cleaning our environment?  Do I want to live in a world where we play golf on courses sans trees, rakes in/out of bunkers, irrigation, and chemical inputs?  Likely not.

 

[Joe Hancock]

What is needed to grow grass is a lot less about what the grass needs and a lot more about what the golfers want.

[Peter Pallotta]

What is needed to grow grass is a lot less about what the grass needs and a lot more about what the golfers want.

I hope Ran can put this on the site's home page, instead of the pretty pictures/examples of world class architecture.

Not to sound like a communist, but the true value/goal of this site is -- or for me, should be -- to help change tastes and shift attitudes, ie to help shape 'what golfers want'.

It can happen. I'm old enough to know that, once upon a time, what many people wanted was to be able drive drunk without wearing seatbelts. Not the same as 'green grass' I know -- but how can less inputs and less maintenance costs possibly be a bad thing?

[Lou_Duran]

What is needed to grow grass is a lot less about what the grass needs and a lot more about what the golfers want.

Never thought of it that way, grass as its own end.  I guess if one isn't concerned about function or the revenue side, minimizing inputs/costs just short of killing the plant would be an interesting experiment.  There must be a reason why in my part of the world they've gotten away from Common Bermuda and single row irrigation.  Terrible what those golfers want (and seem to be willing to pay). 

[Joe Hancock]

Lou,


In our neck of the woods, we are discovering a whole bunch of polluted wells (including our municipal wells)due to industrial dumping (all legal, mind you) of chemicals widely used to make leather water-proof. A lot of people are sick from these chemicals, and it’s being called a more widespread case of drinking water pollution than Flint was when their water became contaminated with lead. Why? Because people wanted waterproof shoes, and they were willing to pay for them.


 We humans should do as we please as long as someone is willing to pay for whatever is we want and deserve. (Emoji omitted)