Chemical-Free Courses?

[Todd Bell]

Bradley,

If you were directed to reduce your current total budget by 20%, how much would you cut from the chemical and fertilizer line item?

Jon,

Are you a golf course owner-operator?

[Steve Lang]

  i couldn't resist the urge to investigate..

FOR THOSE INTERESTED, HERE’S A GOOD REFERENCE ON HOME AND GARDEN CHEMICALS:  http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/growgreen/downloads/products.pdf


IN REGARD TO DACONIL

GardenTech® Sevin® Daconil® Ready-to-Use Chlorothalonil 0.087% IS LISTED IN THE REFERENCE TABLE ABOVE. AND PRODUCT WEBSITE BELOW

http://www.gardentech.com/Daconil.asp


from a product MSDS FOR CONCENTRATED Daconil:

TechPac, LLC.
P.O. Box 24830 – Lexington, KY 40524
Material Safety Data Sheet
GardenTech Daconil Fungicide Concentrate
The product is used by Homeowners and Professionals
September 2009 Product Code(s): S2105, S2115

Section 12 – Ecological Information
Summary of Effects
Chlorothalonil:
Toxic to fish.

Eco-Acute Toxicity
Chlorothalonil: Bees LC50/EC50 > 181 ug/bee
Invertebrates (Water Flea) LC50/EC50 0.068 ppm
Fish (Trout) LC50/EC50 0.04 ppm
Fish (Bluegill) LC50/EC50 0.06 ppm
Birds (8-day dietary – Bobwhite Quail) LC50/EC50 > 5,200 ppm
Birds (8-day dietary – Mallard Duck) LC50/EC50 > 5,200 ppm

Eco-Chronic Toxicity
Chlorothalonil: Not Available

Environmental Fate
Chlorothalonil:
No data available for the formulation. The information presented here is for the active ingredient, chlorothalonil.  A thorough review of environmental information is not possible in this document.
Low bioaccumulation potential. Not persistent in soil or water. Low mobility in soil. Sinks in water (after 24h).

Section 13 – Disposal Considerations
DisposalSection 13 – Disposal Considerations
Disposal
Do not reuse product containers. Dispose of product containers, waste containers, and residues according to local, state, and federal health and environmental regulations.

My Note: Normal  prudent handling of such products in ag industry is triple rinsing with reuse of rinsate and then punching hole in container  and/or crushing for disposal.



An interesting case is dormant oil..

Dormant Oil in State of Washington is on hazardous substance list due to use in orchards and annual use requires a usage tax fee.  It is 99.9% mineral oil, i.e., same as baby oil without perfumes.   The perfumes in commercial baby oil have higher toxicity in their neat form than the dormant oil. 

[Jon Wiggett]

Jon,

Are you a golf course owner-operator?

Yes

[Bradley Anderson]

Steve,

I am not sure what your point is in sharing the toxicity info on Daconil? I may say that I have never heard of a connection between bee or fish decline and the use of Daconil. Probably because golf course superintendents have no occasion to apply Daconil to open bodies of water or flowering plants.

Almost everything is toxic if it is used improperly. Case in point: some of the most polluted streams and rivers in America are around the chicken farms in Arkansas - from spreading tons and tons of chicken manure on the fields. I mean even an organic material can damage the environment if it is not applied properly.

[John Gosselin]

Steve, putting up that info on Chlorothalonil (Daconil) serves no purpose if you don't have any comparisons. If you compare Chlorothalonil against many household products and hygiene products in terms of toxicity or the LD50 that you use everyday it will give you a better feel for where this product stands in terms of danger to humans or ultimately the environment.

[Ian Larson]

Guys,

For those who keep coming back with weak responses to those concerned about pesticide useage. Is it too much to ask for superintendents to embrace the fact that reducing pesticide inputs and aggressively starting recycling programs at their operations while implementing some organic alternatives....is that too much to ask? I mean. What exactly is the stance you're taking or what is your point with debating against this? Are you saying that the pesticides you use and how you use them are completely safe to you, your families and the environment?



Steve,

Theres nothing wrong with posting that MSDS info...

To all the non-turfheads and average golfers out there...when you are out playing a golf course, have you ever noticed being on the greens and you constantly see bees on the greens dead or half dead? I know that when I first got into the turf business I noticed that. It seemed odd but I didnt pay too much attention to it until I started taking my states pesticide exams.On the pesticide exams in every states exam I have taken there are always a TON of questions about pesticide usage and bees.

The reason bees are always on every exam is because of their vital importance to the food chain. They're pollinators. Bees pollinate 80% of all of our flowering crops which make up 1/3 of everything we eat. Thats also why bees and the toxicity levels to them are always included on MSDS sheets.

So the next time you notice a pattern of dead bees lying on the ground on your golf course its because of the bees ingesting or coming in contact with all the pesticide residues on the turf.



Bradley,

Right there is your connection to bees and fishes. Fish are sensitive to almost anything along with bees and bees are the crux to most of our entire food chain as pollinators. Superintendents dont apply Chlorothalonil to open bodies of water. But what about the superintendents that have greens very close to bodies of water? Can you guarantee that with the amount of pesticides that go down on a preventative basis that 0% of the toxic residues never make it to the water close by?

What if the greens were sprayed in the am and a unexpected thunderstorm pops up later in the afternoon? What if guys cut greens after an application and clippings with residue get spilt near the water and later they are blown off? And those are scenarios just for the fish. Greens that are sprayed with pesticides are coated with the pesticide residue. Thats all it takes for it to kill bees. Especially if pesticide is sweet or has another product mixed that is sweet. The bees will want to go after it and expose themselves to it and die. Thats why its common to see a pattern of dead bees from one green to the next on a single day.

Your case that superintendents spraying pesticides is doing good things for the environment is weak and kinda ridiculous. Golf courses are great open green spaces that are perfect for assisting in cooling and filtering. But what the turf industry does to these open green spaces does not enhance them nor preserve them like you are saying.

Grasses have survived for thousands of years without man coming in and preventatively spraying them with pesticides. Grass plants do not need pesticides to stay abundant on planet earth. They are fully capable of surviving on their own.

Country Clubs are an exhibition of arrogance, ego and excess with the conditions they expect to be maintained. And the inputs that are required to maintain that are not natural. Parks, cemeteries and large nature preserves are natural and safe. Greens, tees and fairways are not. And the ecology of the planet would not just die, disappear, erode and wash out because we didnt have superintendents applying all the pesticides they do to their golf courses.

You are not doing a solid to the environment. Pesticides are good in the way that they are not mobil in the soil. That can be a good thing and a bad thing. It protects water sources...to an extent. But it also makes the areas on the golf courses that get applied with pesticides every week for decades a toxic dumpsite because the residues are immoble in the soil.  

[Richard Choi]

I mean. What exactly is the stance you're taking or what is your point with debating against this? Are you saying that the pesticides you use and how you use them are completely safe to you, your families and the environment?

No, I believe what people are sayiing is that NOTHING is completely safe to use, and no one has put forward any evidence that the current usage of pesticide is harmful to families and environment. Where is your evidence that substituting organic method is much safer?

The reason bees are always on every exam is because of their vital importance to the food chain. They're pollinators. Bees pollinate 80% of all of our flowering crops which make up 1/3 of everything we eat. Thats also why bees and the toxicity levels to them are always included on MSDS sheets.

So the next time you notice a pattern of dead bees lying on the ground on your golf course its because of the bees ingesting or coming in contact with all the pesticide residues on the turf.

Again, you are just throwing stuff out there with absolutely no scientific evidence. First, bees die all the time. We have no idea whether or not there were more deaths than nonrmal where you worked. Second, even if there were, you have no idea whether or not they are related to the herbicide use. Correlation DOES NOT EQUAL causal - that is science 101.

Recently, there was a MASSIVE bee dieoff. People blamed pollution right away. There were many TV programs and magazine article accusing pesticide and herbicide use for the dieoff. Turned out it was caused by virus. Until you do full scientific research, people guessing and putting out poor conjectures do more harm than good.

Seriously, all this environmental mumbo jumbo is embarrassing. I am not saying pesticide is completely safe or denying that it is possible that they are harming fish and ecosystem in general, but you have absolutely NO EVIDENCE other than your "feel".

That is not how science works. For all we know, the latest organic methods are doing more harm than good.

Again, only proven methods are to use least amount of whatever possible. Whether or not it is organic or synthetic. Just bashing people for using any pesticide at all is not at all constructive.

[Ian Larson]

I mean. What exactly is the stance you're taking or what is your point with debating against this? Are you saying that the pesticides you use and how you use them are completely safe to you, your families and the environment?

No, I believe what people are sayiing is that NOTHING is completely safe to use, and no one has put forward any evidence that the current usage of pesticide is harmful to families and environment. Where is your evidence that substituting organic method is much safer?

The reason bees are always on every exam is because of their vital importance to the food chain. They're pollinators. Bees pollinate 80% of all of our flowering crops which make up 1/3 of everything we eat. Thats also why bees and the toxicity levels to them are always included on MSDS sheets.

So the next time you notice a pattern of dead bees lying on the ground on your golf course its because of the bees ingesting or coming in contact with all the pesticide residues on the turf.

Again, you are just throwing stuff out there with absolutely no scientific evidence. First, bees die all the time. We have no idea whether or not there were more deaths than nonrmal where you worked. Second, even if there were, you have no idea whether or not they are related to the herbicide use. Correlation DOES NOT EQUAL causal - that is science 101.

Recently, there was a MASSIVE bee dieoff. People blamed pollution right away. There were many TV programs and magazine article accusing pesticide and herbicide use for the dieoff. Turned out it was caused by virus. Until you do full scientific research, people guessing and putting out poor conjectures do more harm than good.

Seriously, all this environmental mumbo jumbo is embarrassing. I am not saying pesticide is completely safe or denying that it is possible that they are harming fish and ecosystem in general, but you have absolutely NO EVIDENCE other than your "feel".

That is not how science works. For all we know, the latest organic methods are doing more harm than good.

Again, only proven methods are to use least amount of whatever possible. Whether or not it is organic or synthetic. Just bashing people for using any pesticide at all is not at all constructive.

Its not about bashing people that use pesticides at all. Its about trying to reduce and become sustainable which is also cost efficient. The effect of pesticides on the bee population is not just my "feel" its a fact. It happens all over the country in all regions and climates. Bees are not included in MMS sheets and all pesticide exams because of "recent" bee die off event.

If you want to go scientific then you respect the scientific method in the power of 3 to even begin to come anywhere near conclusive. Ive worked in the Northeast, the Southeast and the Southwest. It happens in all 3 of these regions. And when its seen. Its multiple bees dead on a single green and on multiple greens on a golf course. And just the greens. Thats one hell of a pattern to say that its inconclusive and just fear mongering. Ive done my research, Ive taken the pesticide exams, I've spent time in the industry, Ive consulted with the professionals. Its mentalities like yours, going after guys who are only speaking of reduction, reusing and self sustainability....while promoting the use of pesticides is what proliferates we have with pesticide use.

And when is this "recent" bee die off event? Its been happening on greens Ive been on since 1996.  

[Steve Lang]

  gents, when I see the keywords: chemicals or drainage or water or geology or pollution or environment, i normally chime in..  for full disclosure, that's because:
- i've been studying enviro stuff and working in the field since 1968 in high school
- i've got a bs chem eng degree & a ms in envir eng & helped start a university recycling center
- i worked as a district engineer for a state regulatory agency dealing with industrial and agricultural wastewater and with water quality standards
- i've worked as an enviro supt at a major chemical company complex and aided epa researchers in acute and chronic toxicity testing of effluents
- i've worked as a principal enviro eng for an engineering and construction firm working domestically and around the world

i've been intersted in gca since the late 1980's, mainly to be able to play better/smarter..  i thank all the golf course superintendents and workers i see for providing a nice play to play and have fun.  p.s. my wife is a chemist and used to work for one of the largest distributors of ag chems in the world as director of reg affairs.. we know all about production, use, regulation, and cleanup of chemicals    

I am interested in your discussion, and hate to see the polarizing opinions and humbrage taken rightly or wrongly.  I seek, no matter what the path. to understand what is sustainable

Brad, if you share with me the chems you use, I'll compare them and others folks might be familiar with.. (you can email list them to me)
John.. the first link i provided listed many chemicals for folks to compare.

[Sean Remington (SBR)]

The MSDS given above for Chlorothalonil is a bit incomplete.  Here is the complete MSDS:

http://www.falmouthmass.us/cranberry/bravo%20weather%20stik%20msds.pdf

Please take not of section 11 and compare it to this MSDS for a common product nearly all of us have in our homes:

http://msds.chem.ox.ac.uk/AC/acetylsalicylic_acid.html

If you will compare the Toxicology of the second to the Chlorothatlonil. 

As for the bees.  I will agree that some bees die on a golf course. But that golf course si also home and food source for bees.  What bothers me is when people use be traps near their outside deck and or pool.  Any of you hanging those plastic traps outside so the kids don't get bothered by a bee?   Many more bees die in this manner INHO.

[Brent Hutto]

Every time this topic pops to the top I have the urge to say "German beer is chemical free. Germany's all right with me".

Sorry to go OT but I had to say it...

[Bradley Anderson]

I will agree that the issue with bees might be very serious. But now, thanks to Dupont, we have a grub control product that has no effect on bees. Insecticide safety and toxicology has made a lot of progress in the last few years.

The MSDS that Dr. Peabody put up is a household Daconil product. If people are using that product to spray flowering plants it has an effect on bees, but only if they use that product during bloom. There is a safe way to use that product, if you are a professional who knows how to use the products with the right timing - which I think most superintendents are. In either case I don't know of any superintendents that are using Daconil for ornamentals. I may also say that I have never seen a dead bee on a green.

Dr. Peabody can sensationalize this issue by putting up MSDS sheets, but you have to remember that these products come with labels that provide very detailed information about how to use them safely. And superintendents are licensed to follow the labels.

Another thing to remember here is there were many native polinators in America, long before bees were brought here from Europe. And the good news is the native polinators are actually making a resurgence.

[Bradley Anderson]

Bradley,
If you were directed to reduce your current total budget by 20%, how much would you cut from the chemical and fertilizer line item?

Todd,

Chemical and fertilizers often save on the budget. There are herbicides that save of hand weeding time. Wetting agents can dramatically reduce irrigation requirments. Growth regulators can cut clipping yeilds by 50% which saves on fuel for mowing.

But to answer your question, the chemical and fertilizer line is a tough one to reduce without cutting in to muscle. And we have all been using way less fertilizer than they did only 20 years ago. I don't think there is much less to trim there.

[Steve Lang]

  Well Sherman.. shall we use the WABAC to go back in time or forward to understand how ag products often use chemicals that are based upon or mimic naturally occuring ones beyond N, P, K, & S elements?

[Todd Bell]

Bradley,

So, spray more save more?

[Jon Wiggett]

Todd,

I think Bradley is coming from an angle of having to provide a certain type of sward and look. If this is the case then I am sure it is the expectations of the golfer that drive this point of view.

If you go down the road of saying that it is okay for there to be more diversity in the sward or even saying it is a good thing to have a certain amount of non 'golfing' plant species in the sward then you can do away with most blanket spraying of herbicides.

The thing about expectations is they can be changed through education.

Jon

[Bradley Anderson]

Todd,

I was asked to cut chemicals and fertilizers to save money, and I stated that if I cut those dollars I would spend more money on fuel for mowing, labor for hand weeding etc. I did not say spray more save more.

Jon I have never blanket sprayed herbicides. I have a 160 acres golf course, and I hand spray the few weeds that I have. And I have a lot of diversity in the sward except the greens are almost all Poa.

In our part of the world, non golfing plants are weeds. And weeds do not stabilize the soils as well as healthy turf grass or prairie grass plants. So if we let weeds take over we will have more sediment erosion into the rivers and streams. The responsible thing to do is keep the weeds under control.

[Bradley Anderson]

The thing about expectations is they can be changed through education.

The basic assumption with all you naysayers is that chemical spraying is driven by member expectations. And guys like Bradley are just caught in the switches until they or someone else comes along and educates the American golfer to accept brown..........yada yada yada.

Now it is true that expectations have something to do with this issue, but in all my experience that has only been with respect to the greens. I mean if you are mowing greens under an 1/8th to provide championship putting conditions, every day of the season, those greens are going to need three or four extra fungicide applications in a year - generally for anthracnose control which is a height of cut stress related issue. But the sum total of all that product is inconsequential.

Generally, all the spraying that we do would have to be done regardless of the members preference for things like color or aesthetics, just to keep grass from loosing its soil preservation quality. For instance, if we allow weeds to overtake turfgrass, or fungus to kill the fairways, that grass will begin to give up soil to sediment runoff. Dead grass and weeds do not control erosion.

My previous club sold 9 of 27 holes to development. There was one green inside the development that stood for a couple years before it was bulldozed. We continued to mow that green every day. But we stopped watering and spraying just to see what would happen. It didn’t take long for that green to become unputtable. The dollar spot gobbled up the turf very quickly. And then the weeds started moving in. And if you measured what was lost in sedimentation after a rain storm, I have no doubt that you would have registered higher siltation rates coming off that green than the others. Dead turf is not good for the environment.  

[Don_Mahaffey]

 Being on the soapbox is oh so easy.
I like to think I am a guy with an organic approach. I try and do as much as possible with as little as possible and when I have problems with my course I try my best to fix the problem, not just treat the symptoms. Wherever I've had disease issues, its almost always been related to things I could control, like shade, or thatch or drainage. But I grow bermuda and most of our disease pressure happens when the bermuda also happens to be moving pretty good. In most cases, the bermuda can out compete the disease so we don't spray.
However, weeds and insects on the gulf coast are a completely different issue. The weed pressure here is off the charts intense. If we did not use herbicides our turf would be crab grass, dallisgrass, pigweed, nutsedge and lord knows what else. Bermuda grown for golf is not going to outcompete these weeds, not here and not now, especially when we have a hot, wet summer. The best approach I can take is to mix up the pres and the posts and try to stay away from any resistance. You cannot grow good golfing turf here without herbicides.
Same with the bugs.
Some years are more intense than others, but when the ground is moving due to armyworms, what are you going to do? Replant? Is that acting environmentally prudent? I would not call grow-ins the best environmental work we super do. I'd say avoiding that is being a good steward. Between mole crickets, cinch bugs, cut worms, fire ants, army worms, grubs...etc...good luck with your organic potions.
Being environmentally conscience is about doing whatever you can at your particular site to limit chemical use. But, if you want golfing turf in areas like the gulf coast or transition zones, or areas prone to serious snow mold, you’re going to have to use some chemicals. The key is using them properly so you do not have to do any more than needed. I believe most guys get that, but some are still going to spray according to the calendar, just in case. As long as they cannot afford to lose a blade of grass that is going to be the MO at some courses.
To provide a firm, fast, dry golf course with limited chemical and irrigation inputs you have to have the freedom to live on the edge, and you never really know where the edge is until you fall over once or twice. Until golfers as a whole don't freak out over a few bare spots or a little brown grass we’re not going to see that many guys pushing it to the limit.

[Jon Wiggett]

Bradley,

you seem to be very sure of who I am and what I stand for without knowing me. I will not bother writing about my philosophy again as you seem only capable of reading that which fits your point of view and not the whole thing in order to get a balanced view.

I am happy for you that you are the person who decides what you do at the course where you work. Do you spray you roughs with fungicides?

Jon

[Scott Furlong]

Don,

Amen.  I hope everyone reads your post.  Well said and perfect. 

[Ian Larson]

Don,

that last post is what it's all about. That post was very balanced as should the supers approach to pesticide use should be. I've done turf in the southeast where the ground is literally moving due to the amount of armyworms infesting the turf per square foot. It's too radical to say that pesticides should be eliminated. But it's just as bad for a super to just preventively spray pesticides so that a perfect stand of grass is maintained. Imperfections should be accepted and thresholds should be lowered in golf. If not the Augusta effect is perpetuated, which is not environmentally sensitive. There is a majority of supers that have expectations set by membership along with a budget. They just spray pesticides preventively to avoid any imperfections. In my opinion that is just wrong. It's about finding a balance between knowing chemicals will be a part of the program and working towards only putting out the bare minimum according to lowered standards and implementing
best management practices to accomplish reduction and reusage.



Bradley,
 
Your premise with having to spray preventively as to be a steward of the envirionment to avoid erosion is absolute compltete bullshit so please stop taking that stance because it's such bullshit it's painful to read. Superintendents are not doing the environment a solid good favor by spraying preventively. They are only protecting their jobs due to member expectations because they are unable to communicate and implement better programs. Your anti-erosion stance is insulting to the profession and you are only looking out of your rose colored glasses for your job and your job only.

This thread has proved one thing. It's neverending because we will go back and forth all day based off of experience and specific conditions. But one thing is certain. Supers can reduce their problems with disease if they first change management practices based off of stupid expectations prescribed by even stupider memberships that they fail to communicate with. You are the poster boy of using pesticides excessively due to conditions that are expected by your membership that you are obviously failing to communicate with. You spray in excess due to standards based off of excess. And you are too comfortable with your relationship with pesticides due to your decades long experience with them. Not once in this thread have you demonstrated balance with pesticide use, it's only been spray spray spray preventively and you're doing the environment a favor by doing so. When all your doing is protecting your job, which is understandable, but whiting yourself out to ignorant membership at your club. Communicate. Your latest posta sound like pesticide company commercials...


One thing I find completely edging ridiculous is that the GCSAA Environmental Stewardship Award is sponsered by a chemical company.

[Jon Wiggett]

Now now Ian,

stop having a go at Bradley like that your beginning to sound like one of those horrible european greenkeeping people. They are always bashing, criticising and moaning about how ungreen the US Super Brad superintendents are (your not european are you? ) and anyway he doesn't have to comunicate with his membership as he is the man who decides what happens on the course of course. I am sure though if he had to he would be super at it too but like not answering those questions asked of him in this thread that do not fit into his concept he doesn't have to.

Ian, I think it is about time you looked in the mirror and realised that if it doesn't fit with Brad it is just plain wrong.

Well thats my rant out of the way

Jon

[Bradley Anderson]

Bradley,
I am happy for you that you are the person who decides what you do at the course where you work. Do you spray you roughs with fungicides?
Jon

Jon,

I do not spray the roughs with fungicides. I do not spray anything unless it needs it. But let me ask you if you are suggesting that the golf course superintendent is not the most qualified person to decide "what to do at the course where he works?" Are you suggesting that some other agency make those decisions?

Ian,

At least we agree on something - I thought Don's post was very balanced as well. I'm not sure what he is saying differently than me? But with respect to erosion - not all, but certainly some turf areas would benefit from herbicides and or fertilizers, and when those areas are not given the care that they need, they become thin, weedy, and exposed. Now you have erosion problems. Certainly you are not going to argue that weeds control erosion better than healthy turf does? And I hope you are not saying that erosion isn't a problem? You do acknowledge that there is a connection between erosion and turf quality?

I don't know what you mean by preventative spraying? I think you need to define that term. And I don't think I am prescribing perfect turf. I am however defending the need to spray and fertilizer to maintain enough density to protect the soil and to provide a decent lie. Would you lower expectations to the point where the turf is so thin and weedy that it looses soil?

[Jon Wiggett]

Hi Bradley,

I asked you about spraying in the rough because in a previous post I had suggested that outbreaks of fungus based diseases are often related to having too much water in the rootzone. Your answer to this is below

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?

Now although I admit that humidity probably plays a big part, you tried to rubbish my comment by intimating that if water in the rootzone was one of the key elements in triggering desease then how come you found the same pathogens in the rough which was not irrigated. As we both know there are all sorts of pathogens found across the entire golf course (indeed continent) but they only cause a problem when they become epidemic and the balance is lost. So if irrigation and water in the rootzone is not the issue how come you have to spray the greens which are irrigated but not the rough which is not? or are you claiming your rough area don't have the same humidity?

To answer your question, no I am not suggesting that the superintendent is not the most qualified person to decide what should be done at the course where he or she works. It is however a well known fact that the bane of many a super intendents is that they are often not able to impliment the full programme of measures they would like to because of various club demands and wishes. Are you trying to say that most superintendents are able to work with no interference from their club what so ever?

Jon