Skip to main content

Is Phosphite an Environmentally Friendly Alternative to Traditional Pesticides?

This week I had a discussion on Twitter about a statement made that phosphite use will help reduce the environmental impact of pesticides on the golf course. The guru of phosphite in turf, John Dempsey, stated this in his thesis abstract.


I have done quite a bit of work looking at the environmental impact of different products that we apply on the golf course using Cornell University's EIQ calculator. The EIQ calculation is, in my opinion, the most comprehensive and meaningful way to measure the impact of certain products used for pest control on the golf course. I wrote about this in a blog post "Sustainable Pesticide Use: Tracking Pesticide Cost and Environmental Impact." I also shared my observations after tracking my EIQ for an entire season in a post "EIQ Tracking, My First Year." Tracking the EIQ has been an enlightening experience for me and has really helped changed my perspective on the impacts that certain products have on the environment. It is usually impossible to determine the exact impacts each product has but the EIQ equation takes a lot of the measured impacts that we are aware of and puts it into a format that is easy to understand. The higher the number, the worse the product is for the environment.

With my extensive pesticide EIQ records it was easy to break the EIQ apart into categories to see how much the of my total EIQ was a result of my phosphite applications.

In 2014 (first year of tracking as I go and using the EIQ to make application decisions) my EIQ was as follows.

Total EIQ for year on putting greens adjusted to account for spot spray applications.

945

EIQ for phosphite on greens also adjusted for area

440

Therefore phosphite accounts for a total of 46% of my total EIQ.

ALMOST HALF.


Last year I looked back on my records as far back as 2009. I wanted to get an idea of what my average EIQ was over the years so that I could set realistic goals.


The average EIQ over the years was about 950. I started using phosphite in late 2011. For the ease of calculations lets just call it early 2012. The rate over the years has remained constant year over year as recommended by John's research at 0.35g/m2 every month. I tighten up the intervals but adjust the rate accordingly during the summer as the turf growth increases. Basically the rate stays the same each year.

200920102011201220132014Average
Traditional EIQ1286.38648.65792.941130.25885.41997956.7716667
phosphite EIQ440.00440.00400.00
Phosphite percent of total0.390.500.400.43
Traditional Pesticide EIQ reduction690.25445.41597.00577.55

As you can see since I started using phosphite for disease control on my putting greens I have reduced the EIQ of traditional pesticides by an average of 43%.

Here's the thing,

EIQ DOESN'T CARE WEATHER  YOUR PRODUCT IS A TRADITIONAL PESTICIDE, INDUCED SYSTEMIC RESISTANCE, ORGANIC or whatever!

It is a measure of the environmental impact of the product no matter how it works, or is marketed as. 

My average EIQ before using phosphite was 908. The average decreased about 50 since I started using phosphite or about 5%. So yes, technically my environmental impact has reduced since I incorporated phosphite into my disease management program, but not by much.

Now John's research has shown that when using phosphite the fungicide efficacy is increased and rates can be reduced. This would in turn reduce the total EIQ. The only problem with this is that I almost always apply fungicide at the lowest label rates. It is simply illegal to apply fungicide at lower than label rates.

So from my observations and data collection I have to say that in my circumstances, phosphite does not reduce the environmental impact of my disease management program on my putting greens. It does, however, reduce the EIQ of traditional fungicides which is a meaningless statement. It does however make me feel warm and fuzzy inside for some reason that most people choose organic products over non organic even though they are often just as bad. My greens have also never been better and the disease has never been easier to manage. The traditional pesticide applications just seem to work better. I can't measure that though.

Now I don't want to say that phosphite will not reduce the EIQ for everyone. For some it will probably have a bigger impact than it did for me. For those that require higher rates of traditional fungicide to get control, or those that are having resistance issues, I would highly recommend phosphite be incorporated into your programs. And for those that already have a low EIQ, the use of phosphite has other benefits for turf as well, namely an increase in general turf quality.

So technically John isn't wrong to say that the use of phosphite can reduce the environmental impact of pesticides, but it won't always be the case and wasn't for me.

To measure is to know.







Labels:

Popular posts from this blog

Turfgrass speedo is still my most important tool for managing turf growth after 4 years.

It wasn't the easiest year for growing grass , but the conditions were still pretty good. Almost 4 years ago exactly, I came up with the idea of comparing actual clipping yields to the "ideal" clipping yield or the clipping yield adjusted using the Growth Potential Model . Since then, it has proved to be a much more useful tool to manage growth than I originally thought .  It has been almost a decade since I started making observations on plant health and playability and how it relates to the clipping yield. I have been constantly searching for ways to get the growth rate right as often as I can and this tool seems to be the best way I have seen so far, and might ultimately, be the best way going forward. To prove this point I will discuss in a future post, the success I've had with pest control in the past few years (for the most part (Not withstanding the times where I think my greens are dead but they actually aren't...thanks T)). Never needed less There are
Read more

Do you have enough?

I recently discussed how we can use fertilizer ratios to simplify how much fertilizer we apply to help us keep above the MLSN guidelines . When we get a soil test done it is a static amount of nutrients found in the soil. Even if you are above the MLSN guidelines at the time of testing, it doesn't guarantee that you will remain at or above the guidelines as the grass grows and consumes nutrients. There is math that you can use to determine exactly how much nutrient you need to apply to ensure that you remain at or above the MLSN guidelines. For many, this is much too complicated. For that reason I made a quick cheat sheet to help you determine how much of each nutrient you can expect to use each year based off a few different annual nitrogen rates. Nutrient use is based primarily on nitrogen use so the left 2 columns are a few different nitrogen rates. The columns for each nutrient are in PPM and are designed to help you look at your current soil test PPM (mehlich 3) and determin
Read more

How to quantify nutrient content in liquid fertilizer

In a recent post, I discussed how it was actually cheaper to spray soluble vs granular fertilizer. What about if we use pre-mixed liquid fertilizer? How do we even figure out how much nutrient we are applying with pre-mixed liquid fertilizer?  Before I learned that you could simply dissolve soluble fertilizer in water and apply it in a sprayer, I was a big user of pre-mixed liquid fertilizers. One of the issues I initially had was figuring out exactly how much of each nutrient I was applying. The math wasn't as straightforward is it was with granular fertilizers. It turns out, it's actually not that difficult but requires an extra step.  First, we need to convert the liquid volume into a mass. Many products will have the product density displayed on the label or you can look in the Safety Data Sheet (SDS) for that information as well. No SDS? Should you be using products without an SDS? Even if this information isn't included on the label it is very easy to figure out. All
Read more