Best practice: IPM protects the environment and boosts the budget.

Few in the golf course maintenance profession would argue the fact that Integrated Pest Management (IPM) is the right thing from a philosophical point of view. In reality, however, IPM--albeit increasingly popular among superintendents for its obvious environmental compatibility--may be one of the most mystifying maintenance practices around.

>From a practical sense, what's good for one golf course may not fly so well at another. The reasons are many and vary greatly across the country. This is not surprising when you consider the modern premise of IPM is to minimize chemical pest treatments in favor of proven cultural and biological controls that will stimulate a particular environmental setting to accept a desired turf cultivar.

Sounds great, and a little or a lot of it works for a little or a lot of courses. Its biggest drawback is a tough one: the eye of the beholder.

IPM's real beauty is far below the skin's surface. It has a mystical bent about it, too, because it's been part of golf course management for centuries, or, basically, from the beginning. It thrived in anonymity; then the modern turf world coined Integrated Pest Management and added a dash of confusion to the mix. One longtime superintendent spoke for hundreds of contemporaries recently when he said, "I didn't know what IPM was, then I found out I'd been doing it for 20 years."

The Color of Savings

One key attribute that frequently gets lost, or more accurately, taken for granted, is IPM's economic value. Indeed, a gallon of pesticide saved is more than a penny earned on most golf courses where pennies are still important.

"IPM, in whatever shape or form, is the bread and butter of almost any small golf course operation," said Jim Hillier, superintendent at Pine Grove Springs Country Club, a nine-hole layout in Spofford, N.H. "The savings are what you make of them, what you can squeeze out of--however you practice it."

In an era where green is beautiful mud impeccable golf course conditions at any cost have grown to be more the rule than the exception, the game's limited-budget playing fields remain bastions of IPM principles--mostly out of financial necessity, but there's also a little more to that bottom line.

"I consider IPM not only responsible, but also respectable," said John Baker, owner and superintendent of a small operation in Gillett, PA, for more than 30 years.

"As superintendents we've shot ourselves in the foot--and the golf industry, to some extent, has shot itself in the foot--by creating this expectation of perfect green golf course conditions wall to wall."

Hillier and Baker both add that if superintendents with limited resources aren't using extensive IPM practices to save money and perhaps save the industry a little face ecologically and sociologically, they should be.

Grassroots Maintenance

Baker, who designed and built Pinecroft Golf Course in the late 1960s, is outspoken, but nevertheless quite typical of course managers at limited-budget courses who must forgo the "Augusta look," as they call it, for the good of the entire operation.

"I didn't know they had a name for it for a long time, but we've always practiced what I would call a minimalist attitude about maintenance," said Baker, who is also a PGA professional, a member of the board of directors of the National Golf Course Owners Association, and, after joining GCSAA a little more than a year ago, a member of the association's committee studying limited-resource facilities.

"We tolerate a much higher level of brown spots, grubs and skunk damage, and odds and ends like that than a larger operation would," he adds. "I think that's pretty much in line with most low-end, public-access courses in the country."

Green fees at the nine-hole Pinecroft layout are $9 for nine holes and $15 for 18. Baker says his gross revenues last year were about $140,000. Most of the profits went to the payroll of a half-dozen seasonal employees. The maintenance budget was less than $50,0O0.

In what he described as a cross between "keeping up with the Joneses" and survival, Baker has built a second nine holes, which are currently in the grow-in stage. He believes the additional revenue from the new nine will outweigh the additional maintenance costs. "With IPM you're basically trying to work in cooperation with Mother Nature to limit the amount of chemicals and various things that you put into the environment. I haven't had a pesticide on my golf course in probably 15 years," Baker said. "It's a concept that I think virtually every superintendent embraces at least philosophically. The problem for many is certainly whether you can get away with it."

To be sure, as more and more expensive, immaculately groomed golf courses are built, the ultimate bane of a holistic maintenance regimen such as IPM is the rising expectations of golfers. But Baker said those kind of expectations are unrealistic and out of line at Pinecroft, as well as any similar facility that has a green fee of less than $10.

"Golfers must learn to tolerate changing course conditions just as they would changing golf conditions," he says.

With a Capital 'T'

Hillier, a eight-year GCSAA member who has been at Pine Grove Springs CC in New Hampshire's southwest corner for 23 years, said toleration is the name of the IPM game.

"The main thing I would stress is the threshold--what you can get away with," he said. "Part of the rationale here is to try to tolerate a much higher threshold of pests than some courses probably would. When the threshold gets high enough, we deal with it. Our guiding principle is to spray less often or not at all, and try other cultural practices as much as possible."

Much of Hillier's IPM strategy is directed at the century-old course's bentgrass/Poa greens. The Poa is managed, not eliminated, he noted, and except for occasionally treating crabgrass, the fairways are on their own.

"It's an old course with strong old turf that has survived and persisted, and it's very tolerant of pests and disease," he says, adding that the responsibility of monitoring, a key factor in IPM, rests on his shoulders. He has a full-time seasonal staff of four.

"If I miss something, it's going to cost an extra spray or something, so I'm pretty vigilant about it," he said.

Hillier also noted that his maintenance approach has meant savings for the small private club: "The members know they're getting a bargain. A low budget means low dues."

A Case Study for Quality

Ten-year GCSAA member Jim Peterson is also a superintendent at a small course whose customers benefit from the savings earned by lean-and-mean maintenance practices. The catch is that Quail Run Golf Course in the mountain town of La Pine in Oregon's Deschutes National Forest is not your usual small course.

Earlier this year, Quail Run was rated by Golf Digest as one of the top nine-hole venues in America. It's semiprivate and has 200 members. It's also one of Audubon International's Cooperative Sanctuary courses, which means it's living and thriving proof that IPM practices can produce a high-quality golf facility.

Peterson's maintenance budget is about $165,000, which is definitely high-end for a nine-hole layout, yet one that could be much higher, he pointed out, if not for management regimens such as IPM.

"As a cooperative sanctuary, it's part of the deal here. We're fully up to snuff when it comes to IPM," said Peterson, who came to Quail Run nine years ago straight out of the Tom Cook turf program at Oregon State University. "Our approach has meant a lot of savings that go into making this course what it is in many ways. A lot of little things can add up. I think it's important to stay patient, develop your thresholds, and especially to learn to identify the right things. You don't want to treat what you can't identify. It's all a lot of common sense, which is the way it should be."

Peterson said his pesticide budget is just $1,200, most of which is for a snow mold fungicide. He's never sprayed for insects. Crews only use backpack sprayers when a treatment of some kind must be used. Quail Run's grasses--Penncross bentgrass greens and Kentucky bluegrass fairways--were chosen because they are well-adapted to the territory.

"The deal here is a big advantage--it's a mountain course," Peterson pointed out. "It cools down a lot at night, and we have low relative humidity, so disease and pests don't really take hold."

In addition, Peterson said he's always on the lookout for turf that can be taken out of production and naturalized. Quail Run, which can play to 7,000 yards two times around from the back tees, has just 43 acres of turf, including a driving range.

"Not too many turfcare product salesmen come around here," Peterson said.

Damage from elk herds probably causes more concern for Peterson and his seasonal crew of four (plus a part-time mechanic). That situation is also dealt with from the standpoint of tolerance--going with the flow, he said.

"I think we've shown that it's possible to have fine playing conditions despite having a low pesticide budget," he added. "The foundation to a successful IPM program is just growing healthy turf. This includes a moderate fertilizer program; lots of aerification; traffic control; keeping mowers adjusted, sharp and running; and keeping the irrigation system fine-tuned."

Pushing the Envelope

Peterson's points are well taken. IPM, or versions thereof, may be a product of historical nature, but today it is by no means confined to limited-resource facilities--economic advantages aside. Furthermore, holistic turf care is not bound by the size of a facility, although there are more prohibitive factors to be considered, economic and otherwise.

Dan Dinelli, CGCS at North Shore Country Club in Glenview, IL, is one of golf course management's more aggressive proponents of IPM. He's written and talked extensively about it and his experiences practicing it at North Shore CC, an upscale championship layout north of Chicago proper that is also a certified Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary.

Dinelli's commitment to IPM at a large, high-profile golf course is impressive. He leaves few stones unturned while employing a state-of-the-art IPM program that includes a highly trained staff, insect trapping methods, biologicals, use of computers and weather stations, historical research and record keeping, and relentless testing.

Even so, Dinelli--a 22-year GCSAA member who has been at North Shore the past 29 years, following a 35-year stint by his father, Joe--will readily admit that the golf course will never have that "Augusta look." He will say, almost gleefully, that it's not the IPM style.

"No, it's just the right thing to do. And it's becoming more widespread beyond the smaller operations--more out of purpose than necessity," Dinelli says. "There's a general movement away from blanket turfcare treatments with a strong preventive angle to them."

And, yes, there are economic savings for the large facility, but probably not in proportion to what a smaller operation could realize. Although chemical and fertilizer costs indeed decrease, staff training and labor are definite tradeoffs to be considered.

"IPM is an intimate approach that takes time," Dinelli said. "For instance, a strong part of the program is scouting, or monitoring--keeping an eagle eye on conditions. The trade-off is the time spent training staff and having them out there keeping a watch on things. In a large operation, it's really difficult for the head superintendent to have the time to devote to that, so it's vital to have a qualified staff."

The Big Hurdle

To Dinelli's way of thinking, however, the savings generated by IPM practices are diluted by a more serious problem alluded to earlier by Baker. It's a problem that affects superintendents worldwide nowadays, regardless of one's maintenance predilections, budget limitations or facility acreage.

"We can only take it (IPM) so far industrywide," Dinelli said. "Then it becomes a golfer issue. If the golfing community at one's course demands that pristine look, it limits the opportunity to minimize (turfcare) inputs. Also, you tend to treat areas sooner instead of waiting for symptoms to reach a more desirable degree."

Note: This article has been edited after appearing in the July 2000 edition of Golf Course Management.

Environmental Thin Tank Thinks Big.

What will the golf course of the future look like?

It is a good bet that there will still be teeing areas, fairways, and putting greens. The rough will still gobble up golf balls and bunkers will make par a wishful thought. In fact, the golf course of tomorrow might not appear that different when viewed by the naked eye. But it is likely several applications that are just hitting the market or are still in the testing phase will revolutionize golf course management.

"The golf course has evolved over time. But what we are seeing now is the by-product of substantial research that has accelerated over the past 25 years," said Greg Lyman, director of environmental programs for the Golf Course Superintendents Association of America. "Golf course management of today is high tech and will be even more so in the future."

Lyman makes that claim because of what he sees as a commitment from a wide variety of stakeholders to making environmental stewardship on the golf course a priority. Golf organizations, environmental groups, governmental agencies, and industry are banding together to commit resources that he says will make golf a model for other industries to follow.

In January 2003, the GCSAA Foundation completed a year-long study that suggested a new and compelling mission was necessary. With the data in hand, the GCSAA Foundation became the Environmental Institute for Golf--a collaborative effort with international representation aimed at making golf compatible with the environment.

"When you take an objective view, golf has really been diligent in promoting environmental stewardship," Lyman said. "The USGA Green Section, Audubon International, the Center for Resource Management, the EPA, and others have been providing vital programs and services. We see the work of the Institute to collaborate with these groups and others to provide education, research, and information for golf course superintendents."

The Institute began its work by engaging a myriad of stakeholder individuals and organizations in a strategic planning session in July 2003 that identified five areas of focus:

* Water Management;

* Integrated Plant Management;

* Wildlife and Habitat Management;

* Golf Course Siting, Design, and Construction;

* Energy Conservation and Waste Management.

Once these "centers" were identified, task groups comprised of golf course superintendents, environmental regulators, representatives from environmental advocacy groups, golf industry representatives, and scientists and researchers were formed. The task groups are responsible for developing the golf industry environmental excellence standards. Running concurrently is an information collection project that will create a functional clearinghouse for golf and environmental materials.

Back to the original question. What will we see on the links in the future?

Lyman believes the golf course will become even more of a sanctuary for wildlife play a greater recreational/conservation role in a community. Recycling of old tires will produce materials for subsurface putting green mixtures and golf car paths. Glass debris will be processed into fine particles that will replace sand in bunkers. Infrastructures will be created that integrate golf courses as a vital part of the community water treatment process. Wildlife habitat will be added to provide for species displaced by more intrusive developments.

Golf courses and managers will also have the tools and technology to be more efficient. Concepts such as sub-surface irrigation will supply water directly to the roots. New grasses will be developed that are more tolerant to vagaries of weather, traffic, and disease, thus requiring less intensive management. It is a development that Lyman sees a huge benefit to the entire golf industry.

"There were those that thought the environment was solely a superintendent responsibility. But this is a facility-wide issue. It takes the support of all decision-makers to support the implementation of new programs and practices that might change how the golf course looks and plays. I truly believe we have made great progress in demonstrating how golf courses can function in a responsible manner. But I also think we have an opportunity to go beyond that stature by making them a vital resource for local communities."