Summing It Up
|
When it comes to managing the allimportant turf at golf courses, things have certainly changed. Today, turf management companies, as well as golf courses and their staffs, are fully involved not only from a business point of view, but also environmentally. In addition to watching the bottom line, they are also becoming stewards of the land.
One of those stewards is John Chassard, Director of Grounds for the Lehigh Country Club in Allentown, Pa. With 27 years of diversified experience in golf course management, Chassard’s track record in course management, environmental responsibility, construction techniques, and producing superb results has led to numerous consulting engagements at properties around the country.
“The environment is a big buzzword now in the industry,” Chassard says. “For so many years, golf courses were looked at as being the dumping grounds for all these dangerous pesticides. And there was some truth to that. Twenty years ago, they were spraying things like lead arsenates that had long life residuals in the soil.
“State and federal governments have done away with those things,” Chassard adds. “They’re illegal to produce, and illegal to apply. A lot of companies are now producing more environmentally safe pesticides.” At the same time, he adds, course owners and operators are on board with the need to be environmentally responsible, as the industry in general has gotten on board with the notion that “just maintaining a golf course as an open space is a benefit in and of itself.”
But how can superintendents be stewards of their land when research exists that shows how organic methods can cause harm, and that there is still a need for traditional pesticides? According to an article by David Oatis, an agronomist with the USGA Research Program, most turfgrass managers would feel very comfortable with the prediction that putting green turf managed without any pesticides would perform very poorly when subjected to heavy play, stressful weather, and normal maintenance stresses.
“The question remains: Can we manage putting green turf without pesticides?” Oatis asks. “The answer is a shaky ‘yes’—but only with a major drop in expectations and an equally significant increase in risk.”
Whatever side of the debate you fall on, the question of managing golf courses with natural and organic turf-care products remains heated, and sometimes confusing. But by rationally sorting out the key points of the discussion, superintendents can learn to provide better protection for the environment, without sacrificing the quality of their allimportant green turf. Good Earth
As with all turf-related topics, the debate over organics eventually breaks down to their effect on soil. Some say organics are a lot friendlier way to build up the microbes in the soil, and that’s led some course superintendents to show more interest in “biological” soil management programs.
But what does this really mean? Generally, a biological approach starts with soil testing, which includes an analysis of both the chemistry and makeup of the soil, so that weaknesses are discovered and addressed.
The next step after testing is to feed the soil and try to rebuild some of the lost biology. But at this step, the prescribed menus and feeding schedules can vary widely—and so can the results.
As Chief Operating Officer at the Robert Trent Jones Golf Club in Lake Manassas, Va., Glenn Smickley goes beyond the norm. In his view, natural/organics are the best thing for his course—most of the time.
“Different products work in different ways,” says Smickley, who has over 27 years of professional turf management experience under his belt. “I prefer manure-based products over meal-based, and I like composted products over heat-processed products.
“But as with most things, too much of any one thing can cause problems,” Smickley adds. “With organics, you must be cautious not to build up too much organic matter, or it can turn anaerobic.”
Even before the feeding begins, mistakes can be made if the soil testing hasn’t gone beyond taking pH readings. “Too often when evaluating soil tests, the first—and often only—evaluation is of pH,” Chassard says. “Universities—and conventional wisdom—have taught us that soils are best evaluated on a pH/NPK basis. Unfortunately, this type of evaluation is a very narrow view of the dynamics of soils. The pH is important, but it’s a very small piece of a very big picture, and should never be the sole source of evaluation when building a soil management program.”
Smickley is quite comfortable using a ‘soil first’ philosophy when it comes to his golf course. “Quite simply, if you take care of what’s underneath, the top will take care of itself,” he says. “There isn’t an agronomy book on earth that will describe a desirable growing environment for a putting surface as being mowed at less than 1/8th of an inch 14 times per week, and rolled seven days a week. The perfect grass for this kind of stress does not exist—so you must give it the best possible edge that you can, by having a good, sustainable, and pest-free environment.”
Pesticides Have Their Place According to Gregory Lyman, Environmental Programs Director of the Golf Course Superintendents Association of America (GCSAA), natural/organic based products have been used by the golf industry for many years—but relying on them as the sole source of management options presents challenges for many climates.
“The controlled release of nutrients from organicbased fertilizers may not be as reliable under certain conditions,” says Lyman. “Control of turf pests through strictly organic based products has not proven to be as reliable, compared to conventional materials.”
John Chassard, Director of Grounds, Lehigh Country Club, Allentown, Pa. |
But how do we evaluate organic programs, especially fertilizers? “When you talk about an organic program, that can mean a lot of things,” says Chassard. “Can your course really be totally organic, where you are using no pesticides at all? To that extreme, the question is debatable, because I don’t think you can get by without using some pesticides.
“There are some courses in extremely environmentally sensitive areas that are trying to do this,” says Chassard, who also volunteers his time as President of the Pennsylvania Turfgrass Council. “They’re having some success—but with a certain level of tolerance by their members that conditions might not be up to snuff, compared to other places, because of those restrictions. If that’s the understanding going in, then you’re fine—but for most country clubs, there’s a certai
n standard you have to produce and if you don’t produce it, your membership isn’t happy.”
At his own course, says Chassard, natural/organic products have proved to be good in a limited capacity. “My program basically is using organic fertilizers as a foundation to build upon,” he says. “It’s about trying to use the right products to feed the soil. I don’t use milky spore to control insects. I don’t use corn gluten to control crabgrass. To me, that’s the extreme of going totally organic.”
Such a Thing as Too Green?
What is the best approach to protecting the environment while simultaneously striving for the best-looking and bestplaying course conditions? The GCSAA’s Lyman cites four keys: 1) understanding growing environments; 2) knowing the critical aspects of a property and its relationship with the larger watershed; 3) managing inputs; and 4) understanding the demands of a course’s clientele.
“I would also challenge the concept of the ‘greenest greens,’” he adds. “I think what most strive for are the most playable greens.”
Lyman is another who stresses caution when it comes to organic products. “There is this notion that organic based products are exempt from causing an environmental insult,” he notes. “Certainly, they have many positive attributes—but all products, no matter what their origin, need to be used in a thoughtful manner, and the environmental fate must be considered carefully,” he says.
The Very Real Risk of Loss
According to the USGA’s Oatis, relevant research from the Bethpage Green Course Project helps not only to answer the most common questions about organic methods, but also predict the environmental fate of some turf grasses. The project, funded by the USGA Research Program, was designed in part to investigate if putting greens could be managed without pesticides on Long Island, N.Y. The study was developed as a response to anti-pesticide legislation that has sprung up on Long Island in the last few years.
In his article on the project, Oatis makes these points:
• The transition from pesticide usage to non-pesticide usage must be gradual and completed over a period of several years. Pesticide usage is a major factor in natural selection, as are many other factors such as irrigation management, fertility, and cultivation. The specific microclimate occupied by the turf can also play a significant role.
• The study also suggests that mature courses that choose to go the non-pesticide route may have to regrass large turf areas to take advantage of the most recently developed turfgrasses and their improved wear tolerance and diseaseresistance characteristics. While many courses in the Northeast successfully manage old stands of annual bluegrass and creeping bentgrass with pesticides, these same blends will not perform well with an all natural approach.
• Reduced golfer expectations are an absolute necessity, if courses are to reduce or go to no pesticide usage. Current industry standards cannot be maintained without the use of pesticides.
“Course owners, golfers, and members must be willing to accept risk if the decision is made not to use pesticides,” Oatis writes. “The risk could entail a significant drop in playability standards, or perhaps even widespread turf loss. A very real risk also is that golfers may choose to go elsewhere to play the game.” C&RB
To comment about this story, suggest topics you’d like to see covered in future issues of C&RB, or just ask a question, contact [email protected]
Tell Us What You Think!
You must be logged in to post a comment.