[Don_Mahaffey]

It seems to be a term used to satisfy the green police, but what does it mean? Some of the most toxic chemicals known to man are organic, does being organic mean I can use these chemicals instead of synthetic ones that have been designed to easily break down into inert compounds. Or does it really mean I have to pay twice as much for the fertilizers and chemicals I use that are approved by some quasi-government agency?

[Jeff_Brauer]

One of my favorite topics!  Some examples:

You would be using 16 pounds of cow manure in place of 1 pound of synthetic fertilizers to get the same amount of nitrogen.  That other 15 pounds of "stuff" is organic, but it ain't heaven either!

Round Up - the most effective weed killer - is really a sophisicated form of salt water, and is very low in toxicity, despite it's effectiveness.  Like your local tavern serving salty pretzels to make you thirsty for more beer, it makes the plants thirsty, but they can't go get a drink!

In fact, many pesticides are scientifically proven to be less toxic than your morning cup of coffee!  Once, when we had the pest service over to the house, he demonstrated the difference in effects on a small bug and a large bug.  The small gnat was killed instantly, while the roach just started hobbling around.  If the sensitivity of the chemical is so different to mere bugs, even if the toxicity was present for humans, our body weight would render the effects almost nil.  (It has been shown that pesticides do affect young children the most)

The unkown story behind pesticides is that supers use far less than they used to.  They also are using scientifically blended materials that break down quicker, go on at lighter rates and are still effective, and are less toxic than they used to be.

IMHO, the emotional aspect of pesticides is overblown compared to the actual damage they may do, and often fails to include the benefits of using them, as well.  (Or do we think a "natural" plague of locusts would be a good thing!? )  I think the emphasis should be on continuing using science to reduce rates, make sure they go where they should go, and to break down in the soil quickly if they go somewhere else.

If you are in a postion where someone is trying to require you to go organic, which I think is both impractical right now, and perhaps forever - I believe science can produce something better than an all natural product for a specific use - I would collect as many facts as possible to combat it.  After all, you live with the results and problems of an organic program

[K.Hegland]

I wish everyone could hear Dr. Vargas of Michigan State, give a speech on pesticides and how they are precieved as bieng so negative to the environment, especialy when applied to a golf course.  He is the best, gives point, conterpoint on the media, and environmentalists.  I'm not saying pesticides are good for the environment, but they are far more "stereotyped" as being worse then what in fact they really are.  

[George Pazin]

Kyle -

Any chance there is written material by Dr. Vargas available for us common folk, either online or in print?

Jeff -

No way you, or anyone else for that matter, win a battle with enviro types using scientifically compiled data. Flat out impossible. Why do you think this movement towards organic whatever came about? Better chance that I drop 22 strokes off my index & qualify for next year's Amateur at Oakmont.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Don,

A failed experiment ?

[Dave Wilber]

My last three years as a superintendent were all about my thought I could run my place pesticide free and I did, save a bit of roundup. We did use some synthetic fertilizers and some Organic Fertilizers, but stayed away from typical NPK fertilization philosphy.

Today I went to the local farmer's market. Bunches of "organic" growers there. SOme of them I know and wouldn't eat a single strawberry from their failing operations. Some growing the most amazing stuff.

I think the real word is Sustainable. There's a quiet group of us that call ourselves the Eco-Turfheads and we get this.

But it is hard to sell that kind of real world philosophy as an entitlement or permitting process kind of thing. I'm always getting these calls from developers and others asking that loaded question of "organic" or "not" and there just isn't an answer that satisfies everyone.

One day...I think we'll have a Certified Organic golf course certification program. I keep getting asked to lead this and I may, as long as it doesn't turn into either a mutual admiration society jerk-off or turn into what the certified organic thing has turned into for agriculture...a silly set of standards that lets that stupid hippy that sold all those crappy organic strawberries this morning continue to sell aweful food. In other words...a certified organic golf course that has poor or worse turf conditions says nothing for anyone.

[K.Hegland]

George,
I'm not sure if there is anything in print of what I'm talking about from Dr. Vargas, but there is tons of other stuff about him, Golfdom just did an article on him and his radical idea to not rotate pesticides.  With that said, Dr. Vargas is easily the best speaker I've ever seen, hands down, he's amazing, he's a genious with a dry sense of humor.

Dave,
I would like you to explain what a "typical" NPK fertilization philosophy is?  I would just like to know what your definition is and how it compares to mine.  I would agree with you on the fact that poor turf helps noone, and if there is a way to eliminate the use of pesticides, I'm all ears.  I definately think that there is room to reduce pesticide app's across the board, but elimination seems a strech, just asking

regards

[Jeff_Brauer]

George,

In my experience, and in hearing of others in the biz, almost every golf course permitted in a contentious environment has been sucessful exactly by using scientific facts to combat emotional arguments.

The typical scenario is that an objector will stand up and make a statement starting with "Everybody knows that....." and we counter with actual scientific and/or design fact to the contrary.  The regulatory board looks back at the enviro for a rebuttal and there is none, so credibility goes down. Project approved.

Of course, many enviros do have, as I think you suggest, a big PR advantage with their basic position and exploit it.  Also, not every objector to a golf course is as unprepared (or off base) as suggested in the above example.   However, the environmental impact of a golf course is undeniagle, but subject to intrepretation - from benign to an "environmental disaster".

Even the Sierra Club, in a magazine article suggesting golf courses are a disaster relies on the same three tired incidents to make their scary point: (1 a diazanon kill in the sixties (later proved a malicious act by a disgruntled employee),(2 An alleged reaction to golf course pesticides by the widow of a man who died on the course (later proved false, but not mentioned in the article) and (3 a Nemacur (?) spill in Florida from the eighties, which was clearly a misjudgement by a few superintendents (if you call applying a material just before an unexpectedly strong storm misjudgement - but I think most in the golf biz would).  My point is, if courses were such a disaster, I would think they could come up with more frequent and current examples of the damage, but they don't.

As Dave Wilber suggests, the industry is only going to continue to improve its environmental record.  It may very well inlcude some organic components.  I am not familiar with all that goes on in that realm, other than most supers I know say it isn't there yet.

[Steve Okula]

Dave Wilber,

Pesticide free for 3 years?

I am anxious to learn how you did that.

How do I contact you? Or please write me at steveokula@hotmail.com

Thanks.

 

[Dave Wilber]

Kyle,

I'm a feed the soil and let the soil feed the plant philosopher and practitioner. Recent efforts by the USGA and others (primarily backed by the fertilizer industry) to disspel the notion that soil balancing is possible have rellly been good job security for me. And my client list reads pretty strong, so I don't think that I'm "on the fringe" per se.


Steve,

Write me at dave@soil.com. But I have to tell you that I can't teach you (or anyone else) to do this over the phone, via email or even with smoke signals. It's field work. And I started consulting (giving up the greatest profession in the world: Greenkeeping) because I couldn't give away the information...just as none of the architects here would give away a routing. I've read you off and on over the years and I know you are absolutely doing amazing things as a superintendent. Good on you!!

[Kevin Smith]

Jeff/Don/Dave,

Hope all is well in your respective world's.  Couldn't resist the temptation to chime in on this one.  

In my view, the typical layperson associates the term "organic" to a crop grown in a pesticide free environment.  We all know that, from time to time, chemical control may be necessary to ward off an attack from a potentially lethal pest.  However, over the past twenty years reliance on pesticides has been significantly reduced.  

Dave, you are absolutely right on that the centerpiece of this effort is proper management of the edaphic (soil, thatch) environment.  Increased sophistication of course monitoring to include: insect traps, degree-day models, use of key indicator plants, disease forecasting models, and consistent testing have helped to further reduce the need for chemical spray's.

Moreover, manipulation of the atmospheric (light, air, water) environment to reduce the potential for pest development is also near the top of the "Best Management Practices" priority list.  Some progressive superintendents have even gone a step further to concoct organic based compost teas that may include various beneficial organisms in an effort to suppress populations of disease causing organisms.  It is interesting to note that many such practitioners have adopted this approach without provacation from regulators or Audubon membership criteria.

As I think back to some of the more challenging environments where I have grown short grass; it seems they were generally 1 or short 2-shot holes with minimal cupping space, restricted access, and were nestled into shaded locales with reduced air movement.  Clearly, assistance from the course architect is always appreciated in this area and I think we've come a long way in understanding these influences.

Of course, the 300 hundred pound gorilla in this equation is the element of golfer expectations.  Were it not for the requirement of near perfect conditions at many facilities I'm sure chemical dependence would be far less.  Many superintendents can't afford to be caught with their pants down during a sudden change in conditions and therefore may treat even when conditions don't require it.  It would be interesting to know the tolerance level of the contributors to this forum of some occasional "splotchiness" at their home course.

George - Here are a couple of trade articles you might find interesting:

"Turfgrass Pesticide Risk in Perspective" by Dr. Richard Cooper.  Golf Course Management, November 1987

"What's Worth Worrying About in Life?" by Dr. Michael Kenna.  USGA Green Section Record, July/ August 1995

"The Cape Cod Study" by Stuart Z. Cohen.  Golf Course Management, February 1990

If you can't find these, please e-mail me as I may be able to assist.

Jeff - When will you provide an update on the progress of "The Quarry" on your web site?  How will your design approach differ at Fortune Bay compared to Giant's Ridge, if at all?  Looking forward to catching up...........KPS

  

  

[Jeff_Brauer]

Kevin,

Good to hear from you!  

I should have some updates, but do write a monthly piece on Cybergolf.com updating progress.  In fact, I am writing it right now, or will finish when I get off here!  I can tell you that the "Kevin Smith Bunker" on the right of 14 fairway is a sweetheart of a bunker!

[Don_Mahaffey]

Kevin,
Glad to see you on this DG.
We supers know all the buzz words in the industry and the "organic" course seems to be the hot one right now. Kind of a back to the future deal as my grandfather was an organic farmer before it became cool. Of course he only had to answer to himself and you make a very good point about what our customers or members are willing to tolerate.
I've read lots of good input from some very knowledgeable folks on this organic golf course deal, but I'm really not any closer to understanding what a developer is really saying when he says his course will be 100% organic. I know of quite a few supts. who are primarily organic, but I don't know of a single course that would be 100% organic as I define it. Does anyone know of a course that is truly organic?

[Peter Galea]

Don,
Squaw Creek in Tahoe was 100% pesticide free, not sure if they used organic fertilizers only. Carl Rygg did the grow- in and was the super, he's now at Estancia. Contact him for details.

[George Pazin]

Kevin Smith -

Thanks for the article tips - I'll try to track them down on my own, first, but you might be hearing from me. Loved your first 4 movies, by the way, especially Chasing Amy & Dogma, but the last one was a bit disappointing.  

It would be interesting (actually, most likely frightening) if one could do some sort of poll of everyday golfers & non golfers alike to see if they have any clue what is meant by organic & how golf courses impact the enviroment. I'd venture to guess many of those opposing golf courses on environmental grounds probably use inorganic fertilizers & pesticides on their own lawns all the time. I recall reading in one of the big mags have someone once snuck onto Augusta & stole some water from Rae's Creek, had it examined & found out there wasn't much in it other than good old H2O.

P.S. to Jeff - Only your good standing on the site allows me to believe in any way your statement that you have successfully utilized scientific data to prove your points. The cynic in me would say this is because you found a rare good judge or commission, certainly not one like those in NY or Cali.

[Kevin Smith]

Despite volumes of credible research supporting the notion that golf development does not significantly impact the surrounding environment (actually oftentimes increasing wildlife numbers), regulators continue to fall back on the the environmental hammer to thwart development.  I suppose a frustrated developer could be convinced that a pesticide free or "organic" management regime is a legitimate compromise in order to save his investment.  After all, I vaguely recall an extensive dissertation from the New York state AG's office, published in 1991, that essentially tried to paint Long Island golf courses as toxic waste dumps.

I know, in the early years, Squaw Creek required extensive re-seeding and sodding each spring to repair damage from snow mold.  Don't know what's transpired since Carl left.

It would be interesting to know how many (and to what extent) of the modern "classics" have been affected by environmental issues that impacted their routing and/or surface features.  Sounds like the makings of a future bestseller (The Environmental Influence on Modern Golf Course Architecture?).

George, I apologize for Jay and Silent Bob, I had to cut final editing short due to a conflict with our Member/Guest.  Such is the life of a greenkeeper/film maker.

Jeff, I'm sure the KS bunker will receive all of its just accolades.  Hey, do you remember the chocolate drop conversation?  Don't recall the hole number, might have been #7.  Just curious.

[Mike_Young]

Was B.S. the first organic?

[Jimbo]

Yes, it started and continues with BS.

Here is an excerpt of LD50's of commonly used fungicides from Vargas' "Management of Turfgrass Diseases".

Remember that the lower the LD50, the more dangerous it is to rats who ate the human equivalent of probably 10 pounds of these per day.  

Caffeine 250 mg/kg (MOST DANGEROUS)
Thiram 780
Aspirin 780
Triademefon 1900
PCNB 2000
Terrazole 2000
Table salt 3320
Chlorothalonil (becoming restricted, totally ridiculous) 3800
Ethyl alcohol  3800
Fosetyl-Al  4600
Iprodione  5000
Anilazine  5000
Vinclozolin  5000
Thiophanate methyl  5800
Mancozeb 8000
Propamocarb  8000
Benomyl  10000
Fenarimol  1000
Chloroneb 11000  Least dangerous

So be sure you wear a hood, gloves and respirator when you have your next cup of coffee, your next aspirin, salt and pepper, or cocktail.

[Steve Okula]

Jimbo,

Perhaps we should explain that the "LD50" is short for "Lethal Dose 50", and refers to the milligrams per kilogram of body weight that it takes to kill 50% of an experimental population of rats.

So, if Vargas is to be believed, and I don't see why not, caffeine, as the most toxic substance, would need 250 milligrams per kilo. That's 1/4 of a gram per kilo. Myself, at 100 kilos (220 pounds, 15 stone, and so forth), would need to ingest 25 grams (almost an ounce) of pure caffeine to have half a chance of killing myself. Or I could try about 3 ounces of aspirin, or even something over half a pound of the fungicide Daconil.

I wonder what the LD50 is for Bordeaux?

Now the LD50 for a material will differ according to how it is ingested, be it swallowed, or breathed, or rubbed into the skin.

If someplace like Squaw Creek maintained the golf course by not applying pesticides, but by repairing disease damage by buying sod from a pesticide-using turf farm, well, what's the big deal?

Still, it must be said, rats are seldom a problem pest on golf courses.

[Steve Okula]

Jimbo,

Perhaps we should explain that the "LD50" is short for "Lethal Dose 50", and refers to the milligrams per kilogram of body weight that it takes to kill 50% of an experimental population of rats.

So, if Vargas is to be believed, and I don't see why not, caffeine, as the most toxic substance, would need 250 milligrams per kilo. That's 1/4 of a gram per kilo. Myself, at 100 kilos (220 pounds, 15 stone, and so forth), would need to ingest 25 grams (almost an ounce) of pure caffeine to have half a chance of killing myself. Or I could try about 3 ounces of aspirin, or even something over half a pound of the fungicide Daconil.

I wonder what the LD50 is for Bordeaux?

Now the LD50 for a material will differ according to how it is ingested, be it swallowed, or breathed, or rubbed into the skin.

If someplace like Squaw Creek maintained the golf course by not applying pesticides, but by repairing disease damage by buying sod from a pesticide-using turf farm, well, what's the big deal?

Still, it must be said, rats are seldom a problem pest on golf courses.

[Jimbo]

I think you'd have to eat that half pound of Daconil everyday for 30 or 60 days to have a 50% chance of dying

As my Father the attorney is fond of saying, the law is an arse.

My pernt is that stats like these are never given by the organic-hippy-losers (or commie-rat-bastids) who have nothing more to worry about, nor the media who love to roll up their sleeves, stare at that camera, and look concerned about the environment.

Yes its true that there are much more dangerous insecticides and nematicides and herbicides and they should be regulated.

BUT!  Next time you spill your Bushmills, refer to your Hazardous Material Spill Response Plan (strategically located in a spot your employees can get to it and become scared stiff) and call the County Emergency Response Team, Fire Marshall, the DEP, the EPA, and OSHA.  They don't know the difference between Daconil and Nemacur.

Just having fun and making a little point.

[Don_Mahaffey]

In the latest issue of Golf Course News a new opinion section debuted called point-counterpoint. This months just happens to be on organic golf. The link below will take you to the pro-organic argument. To get to the con argument clink on the link in the upper right of the page.

http://www.golfcoursenews.com/may2002/depts/Commentary/comstory2.htm

[RJ_Daley]

I don't have a science degree, and I am not a turf manager.  But, I have read any number of articles on the reporting of organic methods of turf management and invariably the organic supporters talk about the good old tea bag compost, and topsoiling of compost.  I wonder if they really understand the logistics of that.  How many golf courses have the extra acerage to manage a composting facility big enough to supply the amounts of compost they would need to be effective?  Municipalities have grass dumps, but rarely do they actually wind row the stuff with enough diverse rotted material mixed into the rotting grass to make a good compost recipe.  Let alone would they spend funds to have a crew properly prepare and care for the stuff to make it an effective recipe.

I don't doubt that tea bag mixtures sprayed over the turf will be beneficial to some extent.  But, I also don't think it will stand up to a real outbreak of Pythium or other pathenogens that can overtake a golf course in a matter of hours if the weather and heat conditions are right.  The size of Martha Stewart's compost operation for her organic antique strain tomato patch ain't going to cut it on a property of fine turf the size of a golf course.  And, for the orgainc supporters to minimize the amount of labor to carry clippings to an on-site grass dump, wind-row it, and churn it for a couple of years till it's ready seems a little bit naive to me...  Oh yeah, don't get the grass dump compost piles too near the housing either... pheww :-/

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()