Skip to main content

Pesticide Use Summary 2015

2015 was my second full year tracking my pesticide use costs and EIQ in a detailed way. Overall I think my year was as good as can be expected as far as disease management goes. For the most part I was able to keep things under control and I came in under budget for costs and EIQ. As always I still only use pesticides on my putting greens which make up less than 1% of the total area of the golf course property (1 acre of 0.4ha).


In 2015 I spent less on pesticide for the golf course than any other year in recent memory. I think the reason why I was able to spend less this year was that we had a very dry summer and I was able to go from mid May to late August without a broadcast pesticide spray on my greens. I have had further success this fall with my last broadcast pesticide application occurring on Oct 23rd 2015. That's over 80 days ago!
This year I was made aware that the EIQ is a flawed method to determine the actual impact of pesticides on the environment. Here is an article that explains these flaws. Still, the EIQ is still somewhat better than using the mass of active ingredient applied as a measure of the environmental impact a specific product has. This is still the way that the vast majority of people track their pesticide use. Therefore I will still track EIQ as it is the best I have at the current time and will begin to look for new alternative methods to track pesticide impacts in a meaningful way.

EIQ 2015 was also the lowest I have ever had. I could probably blow a bunch of smoke up everyone's ass and talk about how all my crazy schemes to reduce pesticide use have made an impact, and maybe they have. Obviously if you don't need to apply a pesticide there is no EIQ. The biggest reason I think my EIQ was so low this year was that I didn't need to use any chlorothalonil as we got a new contact fungicide in Canada called fludioxanil. The EIQ of a light chlorothalonil application is 300 where a fludioxanil is 14!
2010 was so low and 2009 so high because on the last day of 2009 I applied quintozene with an eiq of 833!
Since 2009 my average EIQ for greens has been 900. Of that, 43% or almost 400 of my EIQ was from chlorothalonil or quintozene (no longer registered in Canada for turf). In 2015 chlorothalonil only accounted for 7% of my total EIQ as I only used it in my hand spray bottle in extremely small quantities. That's a 36% or a 324 point reduction in EIQ from chlorothalonil. Guess what? This year's EIQ was 321 points less than my average EIQ. Right there it's as simple as that.

I have continued to apply phosphite regularly whenever I apply fertilizer. The total EIQ from phosphite this year was 309 or 53% of my total EIQ! I wrote about how I don't think phosphite is necessarily an environmentally superior product in a blog past last spring. Either way, the mode of action of this product intrigues me and maybe it is the reason I have had so much success this year. It might also have a lesser environmental impact as I mentioned earlier the EIQ is flawed. Either way I will continue to use this product going forward.

Of course I could talk about all the things I have done. Despite the dry conditions this summer, I still had a lot of diseases show up on my greens. Brown Patch, Anthracnose, Waitea, Dollar Spot, and probably a lot more. The fact that I was able to manage these disease without the need for a broadcast pesticide application surely made an impact on my overall EIQ and certainly my costs for fungicides applied this year.
The total extent of dollar spot on my greens in 2015 managed by applying urea light and frequently and managing moisture in soil or just plain dumb luck.
Each time I had a disease outbreak I would order up the product just in case things got carried away. By the time I got the product I usually had the disease under control and didn't require a corrective pesticide application. I guess this is one good thing about living in an isolated area where it takes a long time for product to arrive.
Waitea? Brown patch? Doesn't matter because with some soil moisture control, it went away.

I have also developed a pretty high tolerance for disease on my course and am getting better at keeping my cool where in the past I would have panicked and played it safe. Experience is a beautiful thing...

Footprints in the dew from disease scouting and spot spraying.
So the EIQ reduction can be explained quite simply as a result of new products with a lesser EIQ coming into the market. The lower costs can be explained by my crazy disease management strategies and my unwillingness to apply preventative applications of a pesticide.

In the end it's easy to feel all warm and fuzzy and pat myself on the back, but in reality the success I had are due mostly to new safer products coming to market. I used to have an arrogance that could take all the credit but not so much anymore now that I understand just how complicated these things really are. My management strategies probably didn't make things worse which is important, but it's hard to say how much lower I can go in a consistent manner in the future. I guess we will have to wait an see. Fusarium is a worthy foe and I'm not sure what else can be done to eliminate the need for pesticides to control this beast during the winter.









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