Weeds on greens?
in [Golf]
|
Prev: Did idiot Tiger give Elin a new and MUCH more generous pre-nup??
Next: Question for RSG tunamint organizers / players
From: Billy on 26 Apr 2010 16:28 In article <0d8c0a78-d8ad-4c7c-8990-54cd79178e04(a)s9g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, Dinosaur_Sr <frostback(a)dukesofbiohazard.com> wrote: > On Apr 18, 7:39�am, Alan Campbell > <greenkee...(a)xxxalancampbell.demon.co.uk> wrote: > > In message > > <c66ecbb5-46fe-411f-8ab1-bb518758b...(a)q23g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, > > Manco <musefan2...(a)gmail.com> writes>Of course golf course keepers use tons > > of chemicals to kill any weeds > > >on the greens and fairways. > > > > Thats a bit of a myth, most diseases and weeds etc can be controlled by > > cultural practices. Furthermore, amenity ground comes under much > > stricter control than agriculture and horticulture. > > > > -- > > Alan Campbell > > That's true. and some places do this, and at least in my experience, > you will always get a few weeds on the greens, which is a good sign, > IMHO. I wonder if they teach this in the greenskeepers programs in US > universities? > > One thing I have also seen is the herbicides damage the soil > ecosystem, resulting in algal and fungal outbreaks attacking the > greens as a result, for which they use even more chemicals. > > Had a neighbour who used a company called chemlawn to keep his lawn. > Beautiful green lawn. Sold the house and the new owner didn't keep up > the chemlawn. Totally dead lawn within a year, and needed to resod. And just using chemical fertilizers (chemferts), reduces the organic content of the soil, which requires more chemferts to achieve similar results (yields), which becomes a feedback loop. -- - Billy "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Arn3lF5XSUg http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Zinn/HZinn_page.html
From: Dinosaur_Sr on 26 Apr 2010 17:01 On Apr 26, 4:28 pm, Billy <wildbi...(a)withouta.net> wrote: > In article > <0d8c0a78-d8ad-4c7c-8990-54cd79178...(a)s9g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, > > > > Dinosaur_Sr <frostb...(a)dukesofbiohazard.com> wrote: > > On Apr 18, 7:39 am, Alan Campbell > > <greenkee...(a)xxxalancampbell.demon.co.uk> wrote: > > > In message > > > <c66ecbb5-46fe-411f-8ab1-bb518758b...(a)q23g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, > > > Manco <musefan2...(a)gmail.com> writes>Of course golf course keepers use tons > > > of chemicals to kill any weeds > > > >on the greens and fairways. > > > > Thats a bit of a myth, most diseases and weeds etc can be controlled by > > > cultural practices. Furthermore, amenity ground comes under much > > > stricter control than agriculture and horticulture. > > > > -- > > > Alan Campbell > > > That's true. and some places do this, and at least in my experience, > > you will always get a few weeds on the greens, which is a good sign, > > IMHO. I wonder if they teach this in the greenskeepers programs in US > > universities? > > > One thing I have also seen is the herbicides damage the soil > > ecosystem, resulting in algal and fungal outbreaks attacking the > > greens as a result, for which they use even more chemicals. > > > Had a neighbour who used a company called chemlawn to keep his lawn. > > Beautiful green lawn. Sold the house and the new owner didn't keep up > > the chemlawn. Totally dead lawn within a year, and needed to resod. > > And just using chemical fertilizers (chemferts), reduces the organic > content of the soil, which requires more chemferts to achieve similar > results (yields), which becomes a feedback loop. > -- Not necessarily. Farmers and others who use these chemicals are getting pretty good at not overusing them. It's not like the old Soviet Union. If nothing else, the chemicals are expensive, and you want to use as little as possible for purely financial reasons. Fact is you can use chemical fertilizers in a way that doesn't damage the soil ecosystem.
From: Alan Campbell on 26 Apr 2010 23:34 In message <wildbilly-366964.13253026042010(a)c-61-68-245-199.per.connect.net.au>, Billy <wildbilly(a)withouta.net> writes >In article <TgYF7AC99uyLFwGi(a)alancampbell2.demon.co.uk>, > Alan Campbell <greenkeeper(a)xxxalancampbell.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >> In message >> <c66ecbb5-46fe-411f-8ab1-bb518758b7ce(a)q23g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, >> Manco <musefan2009(a)gmail.com> writes >> >Of course golf course keepers use tons of chemicals to kill any weeds >> >on the greens and fairways. >> > >> Thats a bit of a myth, most diseases and weeds etc can be controlled by >> cultural practices. Furthermore, amenity ground comes under much >> stricter control than agriculture and horticulture. > >What part is the bit, and what is used if cultural practices fail? There >is a real opportunity to create top soil here, but monocultures >encourage specific pests (bacterial, fungal, insect) and lack a healthy >microbial community to resist them. > >Amenity grounds? The word amenity has you stumped? -- Alan Campbell
From: dene on 28 Apr 2010 05:53 "Alan Baker" <alangbaker(a)telus.net> wrote in message news:alangbaker-CA12CD.01203628042010(a)news.shawcable.com... > In article > > > > Maybe you should read my post before you respond. One thing for sure. > > I can't talk to someone who doesn't understand what I say. For > > example, I never said water quality had anything to do with malaria. > > Either you are a sack of hammers or a troll. Speaking of a troll, read the following..... > You said (and I quote): > > "if the money wasted on DDT were spent on water quality, hundreds of > millions would not get malaria" > > How can that be interpreted in any other way but that you said that > water quality *does* have something to do with malaria? > > -- > Uncle Al, the kiddy's pal > Vancouver, British Columbia -Greg
From: Dinosaur_Sr on 28 Apr 2010 08:55
On Apr 28, 5:53 am, "dene" <d...(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote: > "Alan Baker" <alangba...(a)telus.net> wrote in message > > news:alangbaker-CA12CD.01203628042010(a)news.shawcable.com... > > > In article > > > > Maybe you should read my post before you respond. One thing for sure. > > > I can't talk to someone who doesn't understand what I say. For > > > example, I never said water quality had anything to do with malaria. > > > Either you are a sack of hammers or a troll. > > Speaking of a troll, read the following..... > > > You said (and I quote): > > > "if the money wasted on DDT were spent on water quality, hundreds of > > millions would not get malaria" > > > How can that be interpreted in any other way but that you said that > > water quality *does* have something to do with malaria? > > > -- > > Uncle Al, the kiddy's pal > > Vancouver, British Columbia > > -Greg I generally don't read Baker. He is one of those people who absolutely refuses to understand what people are saying in their posts. If Al or John don't understand what I said in that post, that's their problem. It's pretty clear what I am saying. It just stands as a good example of why you shouldn't respond to such people at all...a level of consciousness thing, IMHO. |