News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


TEPaul

Re: Chemical-Free Courses?
« Reply #75 on: May 22, 2010, 11:42:00 AM »
"Trying to find a "balance" in such an expansive, unknown, biological system would seem to be an impossible task. No one knows what we're standing on, or how it works, really."


Steve:

Then why not let it find its own "balance?" Even if one begins to cut it and even very short why not just give it its own time to try to find its own balance to that?

At the very least, why not let it find its own rate of growth? Why should we always be trying to encourage its rate of growth to increase, particularly if that may not be the rate of its own natural growth occurence?
« Last Edit: May 22, 2010, 11:47:30 AM by TEPaul »

Richard Choi

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Chemical-Free Courses?
« Reply #76 on: May 22, 2010, 12:21:59 PM »
Steve, great post. I am much agreement with your sentiments.

A natural environment took many million years to find its "balance", asking it to find its own balance while exerting such artificial demands on them in even few decades is asking for impossible.

Growing grass in non-natural grassland is just not natural. To grow it to resemble a perfect carpet is even many more magnitude unnatural on top of that. Nature just does not work that way. I am not sure how you can create a "natural" and "balanced" environment while trying to create something so unnatural.

The only way we can make that happen is via creating a genetically modified grass that is custom made for its given environment OR genetically modified microbial ecosystem that creates desired environment. Neither is within reaches of our current technology.

To put it another way, trying to keep a golf course in most parkland environment is like dropping a group of blond, blue eyed people in the middle of Tokyo and expecting them to stay exactly the same way over many generations. Many will simply reject the new environment and leave (i.e. die), some will reproduce with natives, and hardly any traces of them will be left after few generations if left to their own devices without huge amount of outside influences.

Golf courses today just are not natural. Conditioning you expect are even less natural. Those kind of results can only be achieved in highly artificial (and chemically involved) ways.

TEPaul

Re: Chemical-Free Courses?
« Reply #77 on: May 22, 2010, 12:34:25 PM »
Richard Choi:

I certainly understand your point in the last post but perhaps it is more important, at this point, to simply consider the degrees of difference that is possible. In other words, why isn't it possible, and/or even more practical, to use to a far greater extent on courses in America some of the agronomic maintenance practices used on some courses in Australia? I think this is essentially what this Greenway maintenance and management system is all about.

Steve Okula

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Chemical-Free Courses?
« Reply #78 on: May 22, 2010, 01:11:04 PM »
Correct me if I'm wrong, but nobody in Australia actually uses the Greenway method. It was evolved by an Australian in California, the state in which most of its adherents reside.

The last time I was in Oz, 2006, I visited several courses with their respective supers around Sydney. They all had good greens, but nothing out of the ordinary, and they all used automatic irrigation, synthetic fertilizers, and chemical warfare, on a pre-emptive basis, if they though it necessary.
« Last Edit: May 22, 2010, 01:13:53 PM by Steve Okula »
The small wheel turns by the fire and rod,
the big wheel turns by the grace of God.

Jon Wiggett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Chemical-Free Courses?
« Reply #79 on: May 22, 2010, 01:47:06 PM »
Steve, great post. I am much agreement with your sentiments.

A natural environment took many million years to find its "balance", asking it to find its own balance while exerting such artificial demands on them in even few decades is asking for impossible.

Growing grass in non-natural grassland is just not natural. To grow it to resemble a perfect carpet is even many more magnitude unnatural on top of that. Nature just does not work that way. I am not sure how you can create a "natural" and "balanced" environment while trying to create something so unnatural.

The only way we can make that happen is via creating a genetically modified grass that is custom made for its given environment OR genetically modified microbial ecosystem that creates desired environment. Neither is within reaches of our current technology.

To put it another way, trying to keep a golf course in most parkland environment is like dropping a group of blond, blue eyed people in the middle of Tokyo and expecting them to stay exactly the same way over many generations. Many will simply reject the new environment and leave (i.e. die), some will reproduce with natives, and hardly any traces of them will be left after few generations if left to their own devices without huge amount of outside influences.

Golf courses today just are not natural. Conditioning you expect are even less natural. Those kind of results can only be achieved in highly artificial (and chemically involved) ways.

Richard,

I find your post quite disturbing and narrow in its approach to this subject. You seem to paint a picture of the natural world in chaos for millenia until it finally finds a balance when an environment changes. This is simply not true. The environment of an area or habitat can change dramatically and massively in a very short time and mother nature is quite adept at dealing with these changes and adapting.

You say you are in agreement with Steve's post where he clearly states that we have no real understanding of the way nature maintains itself.

quote 'Trying to find a "balance" in such an expansive, unknown, biological system would seem to be an impossible task. No one knows what we're standing on, or how it works, really.' 

The solution you seem to favour is to quote 'The only way we can make that happen is via creating a genetically modified grass that is custom made for its given environment OR genetically modified microbial ecosystem that creates desired environment'. Which you then point out is beyond our knowledge. I would say thank goodness! Why on earth would any sane person want scientists poking about in things such a genetical changes when there is not the knowledge to see what long term effects this might have on the environment.

You say that the golf course is not a natural environment, then maybe you just haven't seen every course as I can assure you there are many examples of courses that provide a very natural enviroment with little to no chemical input. Grasses are grazed down to a quit short height (5-10mm) by sheep and rabbits and this on a suprisingly regular basis with no ill effect, no chemicals to help them survive. On golf courses the only difference is it is mown by machines and not grazed.

The problem as I see it, is really the last one you touch on which expectations. People expect a certain type of conditioning but as with all things expectations can be changed. I find your apparent outright rejection of any other alternative to chemicals somewhat sad, narrow minded and indicative of the problem that golf seems to face.

Richard, looking and accepting that there might be other methods and ways does not invalidate your point of view that chemicals are the best way to create the required conditions. Your utter rejection of another way than the one that you are pushing indicates a lack of balanced allround understanding of the possibilities and therefor reduces the weight that your point of view carries.

Jon

Ian Larson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Chemical-Free Courses?
« Reply #80 on: May 22, 2010, 06:13:51 PM »
Superintendents are supposed to be stewards of the environment. Like the old saying goes, if your not part of the solution you are part of the problem. Superintendents who are not actively trying to think forward about their management practices to consider alternatives, especially when it comes to pesticide use, are part of the problem.

By no means am I trying to inject politics into the thread but the similarities between the big oil industry and the big chemical companies are glaring to me. For decades now the country has been exponentially increasing oil consumption and by extension, dependance. And I don't think its off-base to say that the turf industry has followed that same pattern with pesticide use in pretty much the same time span.

When you consider Americans use 3 times the amount of oil per day than even the largest country China.....

....THE WHOLE POINT IS NOT ABOUT ELIMINATING OIL OR PESTICIDES, ITS ABOUT DRASTICALLY REDUCING.

I made the reference earlier about the average lazy american getting in their car and driving 3 blocks to go through the McDonalds drive through. Because its EASY. Its quick, tastes good, cuts your appetite...everyones happy. But that small waste of gas just used to get the fat ass to McDonalds for his fast food thats just making him fat and even lazier. Getting food that is wrapped and bagged in single use plastic and paper that required oil to produce will go into the trash not recycled.

Well, I look at it the same with the turf industry. Especially in America. Superintendents need the quick and easy fix for a little disease on their greens. Membership wants immaculate conditions and gives him the budget to get any pesticides needed at his disposal. The membership needs to stay happy in order for him to keep his job so why not just go to the chemical company and buy cases upon cases of pesticide to take care of any disease, weed or pest quick and easy.

Just like its the harder route for the guy to walk to the farmers market and get fresh produce to walk back home and cook something healthy and get exercise while doing it not to mention doing a little part for the environment. Its a harder route for the turf industry to start thinking about alternatives to pesticides because its not easy. Its not right in their face like the chemical companies are. Funds are available and using pesticides are quick, easy and dependable. And while the superintendents are getting the quick-easy-dependable fix they have ten cases worth of 2 1/2 gallon jugs and cardboard boxes that are usually half-assed rinsed out by college kid spray-tech that are being thrown into the dumpster. There is nothing BASIC about it and there is NOTHING environmentally sound about it other than it was applied within EPA established rates and procedures.

The turf industry needs to start not just going straight to pesticide use when dealing with disease, weeds and insects. Pesticides should be the LAST option. Pesticides should be used as the last resort and in a curative and spot treatment fashion. Not in a preventative and blanket spray fashion.

Just like single use plastics are bad for the environment. So are single use pesticide containers. One green thing that the chemical companies should is see the waste that the turf industry produces with their single use containers, and start using larger containers like the link packs....when a link pack is used up the distributor comes and picks it up to return and get refilled. Instead we have every golf course operation dumpster filled with empty and residue laiden 2 1/2 gallon jugs.







Ian Larson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Chemical-Free Courses?
« Reply #81 on: May 22, 2010, 06:14:06 PM »
It's important to remember that in no way are we able to let grass grow "naturally" while it is being mowed daily at 3 mm or even semi-weekly at 12 mm. Grass did not evolve that way and does not exist in nature under those conditions.  It will not survive in the form of a golfing surface without intensive management and considerable inputs.

I believe that soil microbiology is an inexact science at best, and there is too much unknown to make any evaluation of balances or ratios there in. To illustrate my point, I quote from "A Short History of Nearly Everything" by Bill Bryson.

    "The most comprehensive handbook of micro-organisms, Bogey's Manual of Systematic Bacteriology, lists about four thousand types of bacteria. In the 1980's, a pair of Norwegian scientists, Jostein Goksyor and Vigdis Torsvik, collected a gram of random soil from a beech forest near their lab in Bergen and carefully analysed its bacterial content. They found that this single small sample contained between four thousand and five thousand separate bacterial species, more than the whole of Bogey's Manual. They then travelled to a coastal location a few miles away, scooped up another gram of earth, and found that it contained four or five thousand other species."

If over nine thousand species could be found in just two grams of soil from neighboring sites in Norway, how many different microbes must there be in all the radically different sites around the world? According to some estimates, there may be as many as 400 million.

Trying to find a "balance" in such an expansive, unknown, biological system would seem to be an impossible task. No one knows what we're standing on, or how it works, really.  


You are right in that golf surface turf is by no means "natural" no matter how perfect the grass species is matched to its environment. And you are right that these surfaces require alot of management and inputs.

What I disagree with is that I dont think that there is any reason whatsoever for the turf industry, especially superintendents, to know what ALL of the thousands of microorganisms are.

There are certain truths about microrganisms that are fact. And its those certain truths that we know is all we need to know to do the job effectively in the turf industry. You could tell me that there are a trillion micro-organisms in existence but we only identified 1000.

All we need to know is...

1. They are organic living things.
2. They are hungry and require food.
3. They are the catalyst to the soil life cycle and when they are fed they perform jobs that benefit the superintendent with turf management.
4. There are aerobic and anaerobic microorganisms. We want the aerobic ones and we promote that by performing cultural practices that enhance the aerobic micro-organisms and compete against the anaerobic ones. Soil oxygenation.

I might be missing something but in general thats all I need to know about micro-organisms. I know what I need to do to promote the ones that I need to work for me. I could care less about the different species, subspecies how many there are and what their names are. Microbiology is an organic living thing and we dont need to have a leash on every type of micro-organism and trained well to bottle up the energy and life they have to control it and effectively manage turf. Its an organic and abstract science, we may never know everything about it.

As far as biological products, theyre black because they usually have blackstrap molasses to feed the microbes with a simple sugar. Maybe some carbon. Probably some seaweed or kelp extract. Superintendents look at products like these as "snake oils" or "sunshine in a bottle" because its different than just raw nutrients or its different than expensive processed fert designed to slow release. But its really very fundamental and simple science. Feed the microbes, supply the plant with its most basic component...carbon.

One of the most important and oldest cultural practices in green keeping is the use of seaweed and kelp. The old green keepers in the UK used seaweed and kelp as a fert source and obviously saw good results from it. When science became advanced enough to study biology in the modern world, there was a ratio of 3 plant hormones. Auxins, Cytokinins and gibberylins. All of these are found in naturally occuring plants at a specific ratio due to the root growth mimicking the shoot growth.

Biological products that deliver simple sugars, carbon or a proportioned ratio of plant hormones are not "snake oils" or "sunshine in a bottle". Its plant biology in its purest form. And its organic and its safe.

For the record. Golf turf surfaces are not natural. But the green keeper can "trick" the grass plant into feeling natural when its mowed close by delivering a certain ratio of auxin, cytokinins and giberyllins to the plant. If the plants shoots are mowed close and the roots are extensive....products derived from seaweed extract and kelp can deliver the hormones to the plant in an organic fashion to make it perform naturally even though it is being managed "unnaturally".

There is ALWAYS an environmentally friendly and organic way to treat turf. Mother nature created it, and mother nature can sustain it without Monsanto. The supers who think the only way to manage turf are the same guys that tell us we need to keep opening up off shore drilling. Soon pesticides and they way we currently use them are going to be a thing of the past just like the way the turf industry used mercury. The future is about thinking outside the box being environmentally friendly(er) and self sustainable. Those who support the status quo of relying on toxic pesticides are not stewards of the environment. The guys that stick their necks out and communicate lower standards for conditions and implement environmentally friendlier programs are the true pioneers to the future of the turf industry.

Steve Okula

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Chemical-Free Courses?
« Reply #82 on: May 23, 2010, 12:38:09 AM »
My concern is that uninformed people will get the idea that a completely organic golf course is entirely practical in each and every situation, and that supers who don't go that route are either ignorant or apathetic, and every synthetic product is damaging to the environment, no matter how it is applied, all of which is demonstrably false.

This discussion should be overlapped with the Poa Annua to Bentgrass Conversion thread, where people are advocating fumigation with methyl bromide. In my view, of all the chemicals used on golf courses today, MeBr is the single worst environmental offender, contributing to the depletion of the ozone layer. Folks over on that thread are speaking of it as casually as if it were a fertilizer application.
The small wheel turns by the fire and rod,
the big wheel turns by the grace of God.

Mark Luckhardt

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Chemical-Free Courses?
« Reply #83 on: May 23, 2010, 08:32:42 AM »
MeBr is more prevalent in the US food crop industry than turfgrass. I was merely bringing up another option, that is legal and popular, and banned in Europe.  There will not be any banning of highly useful chemicals in any agri business any time soon that I can see.  But, we can all do more to conserve all energies.

Bradley Anderson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Chemical-Free Courses?
« Reply #84 on: May 23, 2010, 08:40:10 AM »
Steve, great post. I am much agreement with your sentiments.

A natural environment took many million years to find its "balance", asking it to find its own balance while exerting such artificial demands on them in even few decades is asking for impossible.

Growing grass in non-natural grassland is just not natural. To grow it to resemble a perfect carpet is even many more magnitude unnatural on top of that. Nature just does not work that way. I am not sure how you can create a "natural" and "balanced" environment while trying to create something so unnatural.

The only way we can make that happen is via creating a genetically modified grass that is custom made for its given environment OR genetically modified microbial ecosystem that creates desired environment. Neither is within reaches of our current technology.

To put it another way, trying to keep a golf course in most parkland environment is like dropping a group of blond, blue eyed people in the middle of Tokyo and expecting them to stay exactly the same way over many generations. Many will simply reject the new environment and leave (i.e. die), some will reproduce with natives, and hardly any traces of them will be left after few generations if left to their own devices without huge amount of outside influences.

Golf courses today just are not natural. Conditioning you expect are even less natural. Those kind of results can only be achieved in highly artificial (and chemically involved) ways.

Richard,

I find your post quite disturbing and narrow in its approach to this subject. You seem to paint a picture of the natural world in chaos for millenia until it finally finds a balance when an environment changes. This is simply not true. The environment of an area or habitat can change dramatically and massively in a very short time and mother nature is quite adept at dealing with these changes and adapting.

You say you are in agreement with Steve's post where he clearly states that we have no real understanding of the way nature maintains itself.

quote 'Trying to find a "balance" in such an expansive, unknown, biological system would seem to be an impossible task. No one knows what we're standing on, or how it works, really.'  

The solution you seem to favour is to quote 'The only way we can make that happen is via creating a genetically modified grass that is custom made for its given environment OR genetically modified microbial ecosystem that creates desired environment'. Which you then point out is beyond our knowledge. I would say thank goodness! Why on earth would any sane person want scientists poking about in things such a genetical changes when there is not the knowledge to see what long term effects this might have on the environment.

You say that the golf course is not a natural environment, then maybe you just haven't seen every course as I can assure you there are many examples of courses that provide a very natural enviroment with little to no chemical input. Grasses are grazed down to a quit short height (5-10mm) by sheep and rabbits and this on a suprisingly regular basis with no ill effect, no chemicals to help them survive. On golf courses the only difference is it is mown by machines and not grazed.

The problem as I see it, is really the last one you touch on which expectations. People expect a certain type of conditioning but as with all things expectations can be changed. I find your apparent outright rejection of any other alternative to chemicals somewhat sad, narrow minded and indicative of the problem that golf seems to face.

Richard, looking and accepting that there might be other methods and ways does not invalidate your point of view that chemicals are the best way to create the required conditions. Your utter rejection of another way than the one that you are pushing indicates a lack of balanced allround understanding of the possibilities and therefor reduces the weight that your point of view carries.

Jon

Jon,

Where are are you located and what is your experience with golf course maintenance?
« Last Edit: May 23, 2010, 08:45:21 AM by Bradley Anderson »

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +1/-1
Re: Chemical-Free Courses?
« Reply #85 on: May 23, 2010, 11:14:32 AM »
My concern is that uninformed people will get the idea that a completely organic golf course is entirely practical in each and every situation, and that supers who don't go that route are either ignorant or apathetic, and every synthetic product is damaging to the environment, no matter how it is applied, all of which is demonstrably false.

This discussion should be overlapped with the Poa Annua to Bentgrass Conversion thread, where people are advocating fumigation with methyl bromide. In my view, of all the chemicals used on golf courses today, MeBr is the single worst environmental offender, contributing to the depletion of the ozone layer. Folks over on that thread are speaking of it as casually as if it were a fertilizer application.

Steve:

I understand the reluctance you expressed in your first paragraph, but there are a lot of guys using that as a crutch to do nothing at all.

And I agree completely with your second point about methyl bromide.  When we rebuilt the greens at The Creek Club the superintendent and the agronomists were pushing the membership to get it done because methyl bromide was about to be outlawed and they would never be able to fumigate as effectively again.  That was SIXTEEN YEARS AGO, and they are still using the same sales pitch, while lobbying hard to keep the right to use the stuff.

I stopped going to the GCSAA show many years ago, after a friend of mine at the end of a long day there said, "What chance do we have of seeing any reductions in chemical use, when you see how many companies are spending so much money to sell the stuff?"

Steve Okula

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Chemical-Free Courses?
« Reply #86 on: May 23, 2010, 03:04:23 PM »
Regarding methyl bromide, as I stated under he Poa Annua to Bentgrass Conversion thread, there is in fact a hole in the ozone over the southern hemisphere the size of Europe. This affects me in a very personal way, as my Australian wife has had bouts with skin cancer. My children just got back from a month there, and it's not safe to be in the sun. How far should we go for "pure" greens?

For years, the GCSAA lobbied for a Critical Use Exemption from the EPA for MeBr in turfgrass applications. It was utter nonsense. "Critical Use" means that the industry will fail without it, which is ridiculous in the case of golf courses. The GCSAA has recently given up that particular battle, but it appears that MeBr fumigation of turfgrass sites in the U.S. goes on unabated.

Sod growers are also prime users of the stuff, the same people that these organic golf courses go to for sod to replace their naturally failed turf. 

MeBr is used predominantely in agricultural crops, and strawberrry growers are the biggest users. I recall someone here in another thread pointing out how healthy strawberries are to eat. Well, everything comes at a price.
The small wheel turns by the fire and rod,
the big wheel turns by the grace of God.

Todd Bell

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Chemical-Free Courses?
« Reply #87 on: May 23, 2010, 05:06:02 PM »
How can expect the super to abolish chemicals when the paradigm of golf course maintenance standards was created with chemicals?

If you want the greens rolling 10.5 at 8AM and 3 in the afternoon; chemicals are needed.
If you want the Mens M/G a month after overseeding; chemicals are needed.
If you want turf grass to perform outside the usual course of nature; chemicals are needed.

Reminds me of health care debacle; everybody wants lowers health care cost yet, no one wants to change their diet.

I digress.

Jon Wiggett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Chemical-Free Courses?
« Reply #88 on: May 23, 2010, 05:31:15 PM »
Todd,

you seem to be taking specific situations and saying because you need chemicals here then you must accept them everywhere. Maybe you are not saying this or are you?

I agree there are situations that do require chemicals but they are not nearly as common as people think.

Jon

Bradley Anderson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Chemical-Free Courses?
« Reply #89 on: May 23, 2010, 08:50:44 PM »
Jon,

I am still curious about where you are located? What are the environmental conditions that you are dealing with?

Bill Gayne

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Chemical-Free Courses?
« Reply #90 on: May 23, 2010, 08:58:18 PM »
Somewhat OT to this thread. I came across this idea on a watrfowl hunting site that frequent about how to deal with problen Canada Geese.

1. Buy stuff called "Pure-Cap"

http://www.hotsauceworld.com/purecap.html

2. Mix one shot glass to one quart of water. Do NOT get any on your hands!

3. Fill a squirt bottle with the stuff and spray it on the grass. Friggin Geese will eat the grass up to the point of coming into the area you sprayed. Once they get a whiff of that stuff.... they put it in reverse FAST!

I've bought a garden hose attachment that is used to spray insecticides...and spray the whole lawn.

No more goose crap (works until it rains)...

Jon Wiggett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Chemical-Free Courses?
« Reply #91 on: May 24, 2010, 01:36:33 AM »
Jon,

I am still curious about where you are located? What are the environmental conditions that you are dealing with?

Sory Bradley,

missed this. I am just north of Inverness in the Scottish Highlands so typical scottish weather though we are generally quite dry here.

Have also worked from high Alpine to dry mediterainian climate zones.

Jon

Bradley Anderson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Chemical-Free Courses?
« Reply #92 on: May 24, 2010, 08:41:28 AM »
Jon,

The chemical spraying and irrigating that we do in America is mostly preventative fungicides May through August, and watering, as needed, through the same period.

If I am not mistaken your region of the world has average daily highs in that period of 55-65 degrees F. And you get 2.0 - 3.0 inches of rain in each of those months that fall every three days or so.

Your conditions are very similar to the conditions we have in spring and fall, except much drier and much less humidity. Honestly we don't spray or irrigate much during those times, unless its for weeds. My point is we wouldn't spray or irrigate either if we had the kinds of conditions that you work with.
« Last Edit: May 24, 2010, 09:00:47 AM by Bradley Anderson »

Jon Wiggett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Chemical-Free Courses?
« Reply #93 on: May 25, 2010, 02:39:04 PM »
Bradley,

yes I can see your point and I am in no way saying that its a one size fits all sort of thing. I would firstly say that I do not have any experience of warm season grasses except a little bemuda that used to grow wild on a course I worked on in switzerland but this was not really in play.

I do however feel that if you are spraying preventative fungicides then you will have an issue with excessive moisture in the rootzone/thatch/leaf and if you irrigate on top of this then you compound the problem. I would imagine that many courses need to irrigate to retain the colour and probably the grass. This to me is a case of setting the wrong goals for the sward coupled with probable poor grass selection but only if you are looking for low/no chemical input.

If you put a person on antibiotics 24/7 what would happen? and why don't doctors do this but many in the turfgrass industry think it is okay?

Jon

Steve Okula

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Chemical-Free Courses?
« Reply #94 on: May 25, 2010, 04:10:54 PM »
Bradley,

yes I can see your point and I am in no way saying that its a one size fits all sort of thing. I would firstly say that I do not have any experience of warm season grasses except a little bemuda that used to grow wild on a course I worked on in switzerland but this was not really in play.

I do however feel that if you are spraying preventative fungicides then you will have an issue with excessive moisture in the rootzone/thatch/leaf and if you irrigate on top of this then you compound the problem. I would imagine that many courses need to irrigate to retain the colour and probably the grass. This to me is a case of setting the wrong goals for the sward coupled with probable poor grass selection but only if you are looking for low/no chemical input.

If you put a person on antibiotics 24/7 what would happen? and why don't doctors do this but many in the turfgrass industry think it is okay?

Jon

Jon, I don't follow you. Are you saying that fungicide applications in themselves cause excessive moisture in the "rootzone/thatch/leaf"? You say that irrigation is sometimes necessary to retain the grass, but this sets the "wrong goals". If retaining the grass is the wrong goal, then what is the right one?

In any case, I'm sure Bradley is referring to cool-season greens, bermuda grass is formidably disease resistant without any fugnicides.

Comparing people with grass is a false analogy. One is animal, the other plant. How well would people do if you ran them over with mowers every day?





The small wheel turns by the fire and rod,
the big wheel turns by the grace of God.

Jon Wiggett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Chemical-Free Courses?
« Reply #95 on: May 25, 2010, 06:38:24 PM »
Steve,

sorry, when I reread my comment it is not at all clear and maybe that should be a warning to giving quick replies when you don't have the time to check them. It should have read 'if you need to spray for fungi then you probably have an issue with excessive moisture in the rootzone/thatch/leaf'.

By goal setting I meant the general goals. If you choose a grass that is suited to the environment and use an appropriate maitenance program then it should not be necessary to use chemicals (much) or water. If you need to do either then the goals set are not compatible with chemical low/no maintenance.

Steve, I do not want you to think that I am saying that all courses can go down this road. Many are doing a very good job at reducing the effect they have on the environment but it is not possible for most to go as far as it is possible due to their circumstances. Also, altough I think you are very clever at spotting that people are animals and grass is a plant (what we learn as greenkeepers these days ;)) I would say it is a good analogy. With fungicides you destroy not only the bad but also the good leaving the plant in a weakened state just as with a person who takes antibiotics all the time.

Jon


Bradley Anderson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Chemical-Free Courses?
« Reply #96 on: May 26, 2010, 07:18:13 AM »
Jon,

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

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

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

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

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

« Last Edit: May 26, 2010, 07:22:06 AM by Bradley Anderson »

Ian Larson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Chemical-Free Courses?
« Reply #97 on: May 26, 2010, 12:35:13 PM »
A single number that the ET formula gives you needs to be thrown out when determining frequency and volume of water to be irrigated. Its a number....how can one number determine how 3-4 acres of turf scattered around a couple hundred acres of property is to be watered in a consistent blanket application?

ET is a reference tool. Ive stopped using ET in irrigation programs a long time ago because I found that it did what its supposed to do. keep greens consistently wet. And keeping greens wet is 1/3 of the disease triangle with soil born pathogens and temperature being the other 2/3. After the foliage of the grass plants on a green have spent a day in the heat using water to synthesize, replacing that water at night in a blanket application with sprinkler heads is not delivering the water directly back to foliage. Its soaking down the thatch and soil just as much as it is the grass foliage. The grass foliage determines when and how much water it wants to replenish itself from wilt. If grass foliage sucked up the water into the foliage as quick as it is being dumped on by the sprinkler heads I think it would be effective. But that doesnt happen. The thatch and soil get soaked down, where the soil born pathogens are hanging out. The next day it gets up to 85 degrees by lunchtime as the greens still sit there wet from the night before as the grass plant is still taking its time sipping on the water. Bam....youve now got the all 3 of the components of the disease triangle working together. American superintendents facilitate disease with their watering practices.

A dry green is a healthy green. It prevents root systems from getting lazy. Keeping it dry forces the roots to dig deep to look for water and it reduces disease pressure. Using an ET based irrigation program means that its very possible to be watering every single night in the summertime in between rainstorm soakings. ET occurs everyday that the weather is nice. If a super has 14 days straight of sunny 85 degree weather with poa on pushup greens should the sprinklers be ran every night, or even most nights, just because the ET rate was high and that water needs to be replaced immediately? Hell no.....well ok, maybe because you know a shitload of fungicide is going to be put out to fight the disease that the super helped out. Its a vicious cycle that needs to stopped starting with the super.

ET based irrigation programs need to thrown out and good old fashioned syringing that is properly trained needs to be the crux of the water management program with deep and infrequent (very infrequent) waterings. Greens just need to be cooled down with a mist at a frequency determined by how hot it is through the afternoon until temps balance out going into the evening. And while the greens are being kept cool with a mist one thing needs to be on the top of the hose-guys priorities.....not putting a volume of water down that is enough to start soaking the thatch and soil. If he cant wrap that around his brain someone else needs to be on the hose that can. The one pet peeve I have that drives me NUTS is watching a guy soaking down a green with nozzle going straight down and spending 10 minutes on it....all because of a little wilt.


Bradley, one thing I think your missing the mark on with what your saying to Jon is that in the disease triangle is temperature. Temperature does not mean high temperatures and high humidity that is more common in the states than northern Scotland. Temperature means high temps, low temps and medium temps. There are many pathogens out there in the soil, some like it hot...some like it cold. Regions that are predominantly cooler have their own set of diseases that pop up at different times with their cooler temps they prefer. 2/3 of the disease triangle is completely out of the supers control and in the hands of mother nature with pathogens and temperatures. Its up to the super to manage the other 1/3 properly with smart water management. American supers in general need to stop making excuses about how much they rely on toxic chemicals, especially in a preventative fungicide program. Reduce water in the soil you reduce disease pressure. Reduce disease pressure you reduce pesticide use. Do you consider a preventative fungicide program as being a good steward to the environment?

Steve Okula

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Chemical-Free Courses?
« Reply #98 on: May 26, 2010, 03:37:59 PM »
Grass does die from a lack of water. I've seen it happen.

Grass does die from disease. I've personally witnessed that, too.

When grass dies on a golf course, what you're left with is bare dirt. In the best of circumstances there are a lot of irate golfers, and at the worst the unemployment line.

It's real easy to talk the talk, it's quite another to hold down a job and manage a successful career.
« Last Edit: May 27, 2010, 01:05:24 AM by Steve Okula »
The small wheel turns by the fire and rod,
the big wheel turns by the grace of God.

Ian Larson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Chemical-Free Courses?
« Reply #99 on: May 26, 2010, 04:16:28 PM »
Grass does die from a lack of water. I've seen it happen.

Grass does die from disease. I've personally witnessed that, too.

When grass dies on a golf course, what your left with is bare dirt. In the best of circumstances there are a lot of irate golfers, and at the worst the unemployment line.

It's real easy to talk the talk, it's quite another to hold down a job and manage a successful career.



So the answer is to overdo the one aspect of the disease triangle that is manageable by over watering and preventively spraying fungicides? I dont think so. There are plenty of guys out there that manage firm and fast courses by only giving the plant what it needs through keeping fert and water lean. Ive said in an earlier post that it starts with a super being able to communicate to his membership or whoever is the boss that a little wilt is ok. Just because greens have a little wilt doesnt mean theyre dead or are dying. If grass has died because of water then somebody wasnt doing their job and dropped the ball with watching the greens. Supers water so that wilt is never seen at all. And that much water is conducive to disease. That much water is a wet green soil profile. If a super is in a situation where a little wilt and a little brown is just not acceptable then water away, hopefully the budget is big enough to handle a preventative fungicide program. But it doesnt need to be that way. Its not environmentally friendly nor is the super acting as a steward to the environment by doing it whether its forced by the membership or on his own. The guys that value being environmentally conscious communicate the importance of it to the membership to persuade them to do so while reducing inputs and money while providing healthier conditions. Not all supers are absolutely passionate about managing an environmentally friendlier golf course. Its not about the complete elimination, its about reduction. If a super is on here arguing against guys that are promoting less water, less pesticides, consider more organic alternatives where its feasible, communicate sustainability to memberships....those are guys that are perpetuating part of the problem and not part of the solution in the bigger picture of the industry and the even bigger picture of the world we live in.
« Last Edit: May 26, 2010, 04:20:30 PM by Ian Larson »

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back