Technical
Sustainable Nutrition (MLSN) soil guidelines -
https://www.paceturf.org/PTRI/Documents/120 2_ref.pdf for more info. Since that time, the guidelines have been
adopted by turf managers around the world, many of whom have been pleasantly surprised at how low they could go in terms of soil nutrition without sacrificing turf quality or playability. We believe that most superintendents can
make significant reductions in the total nutrients applied at your location by using MLSN as a guide.
Measure total pounds and toxicity levels of pesticides applied
Reducing the total pounds or kilos of pesticides used is a good goal, but reducing the toxicity of the pesticides applied is equally important. Determining the weight of pesticide (insecticide, fungicide, herbicide, nematicide, etc.) used is simply a matter of keeping track of the pounds or kilos of pesticide active ingredient applied over the course of a year. Every pesticide label contains the information necessary to calculate how much of each pesticide active ingredient is present in the jug or bag of formulated product. Using a spreadsheet to keep track of these
amounts is not only the easiest method for keeping records safe, but also the most efficient in terms of comparing totals from one year to the next. To keep track of the toxicity of the products
used, make a separate column on the spreadsheet for each pesticide toxicity class, and track the pounds or kilos of pesticide active ingredient used for each of these toxicity classes. In almost all countries, pesticides are separated into three or four toxicity classes, ranging from very low toxicity to high toxicity, based on the result of laboratory animal testing. These tests usually include oral, inhalation, dermal and eye exposure. The scheme used by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency employs the use of four toxicity classes, from Category I (most toxic) to Category IV (least toxic). To find out which toxicity class any given
product falls into, the pesticide label is the best guide. Products labelled with a “CAUTION” signal word are regarded as the least toxic products, whilst “WARNING” indicates increased toxicity and “DANGER” indicates the highest toxicity product. The Material Data Safety Sheet, or MSDS (in some cases known as the Safety Data Sheet, or SDS), also contains useful information on pesticide toxicity.
“ Water usage
Although fresh water is technically a renewable resource, humans are currently using it at a much faster rate than it is being replenished by nature. As a result, experts have voiced concern that competition for water can become serious enough in the near future to be the source of violent conflict - the so-called water wars. Whilst agriculture is by far the greatest user
of water worldwide, golf courses can certainly do their share to decrease water usage in some of the following ways.
• Take advantage of recycled (reclaimed) water if it is available.
We believe that most superintendents can make significant reductions in the total nutrients applied at your location by using MLSN as a guide
A more detailed evaluation of pesticide
toxicity, known as the Environmental Impact Quotient (EIQ), incorporates the results of toxicology testing, leaching potential, soil and plant half life, farm worker and consumer risk and overall ecological risk. An equation that measures the impact of each of these factors is then used to generate an EIQ value for each pesticide, with lower values indicating lower overall toxicity. EIQ values for most commonly used
pesticides are available online (
www.nysipm.cornell.edu/publications/eiq/fles/ EIQ_values_2012entire.pdf) courtesy of Cornell University. Whichever method is used to characterise
the toxicity of pesticides used at a facility - the simpler method described here or the more comprehensive EIQ approach - the bottom line is to keep careful records. Recording the changes in total pounds of all pesticides used, as well as the ways that you have shifted the types of pesticides used - from more toxic to least toxic - will provide excellent documentation on your progress toward more sustainable practices.
• Improve irrigation efficiency through periodic catch-can testing or professional irrigation audits. Water savings and turf-quality improvements can be significant when irrigation systems are maintained properly.
• When possible, switch to drought-tolerant varieties, avoid overseeding or completely remove turfgrass from certain areas.
• Keep abreast of new water-saving technologies such as subsurface irrigation, wetting agents and monitoring with soil moisture meters
• Track water volumes in gallons or litres on a spreadsheet so that consumption can be compared from one year to the next
Staying on track
Once you’ve got those spreadsheets going, why not keep track of other inputs that can contribute to your sustainability profile?
• fuel costs and volumes • hours of labour • kilowatt hours and electrical use costs
Each sustainability parameter should be measured at the start of the sustainability plan and at periodic intervals thereafter so that progress can be easily tracked. Whether it’s new year’s day, the start of the
fiscal year or your birthday, select a date for annual assessment of sustainability progress using the parameters above, and hopefully, some additional ones that you identify on your own. By monitoring parameters that have hard
and fast numbers attached to them, you will have a clear and easy way to communicate your progress as a means of motivating your employees, highlighting it in your job review, and publicising it in your clubhouse, your newsletter or your website. You, your crew and your facility should be
able to take pride in contributing to both a more economically and environmentally sustainable operation.
Wendy Gelernter Ph.D and Larry Stowell Ph.D are the principals of Pace Turf LLC, San Diego, Calif., and Micah Woods Ph.D is chief scientist at the Asian Turfgrass Center and an adjunct assistant professor in the department of plant sciences at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tenn.
This article first appeared in Golf Course Management (GCM), the official publication of the GCSAA, and is reproduced by kind permission
Wendy Gelernter Ph.D
Larry Stowell Ph.D
Micah Woods Ph.D PC AUGUST/SEPTEMBER 2016 I 131
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156