As many of you know, the green fumigation-reseeding methodology will require some alternative planning in the coming years. The use of methyl bromide to sterilize greens prior to reseeding has been the subject of increased regulation for a while now. The use of methyl bromide in hot gas applications will change considerably at the end of this year. Starting Jan. 1, 2011, the product label will require increased safety precautions for applicators and reductions in allowable rates (50% or more). These restrictions alone greatly reduce the product’s viability on golf greens. In 2012, restrictive buffer zones will be added. This will effectively end the practical application on golf courses in general – except for maybe those properties located in the middle of a cornfield with no human dwellings within several thousand feet!
So, here’s a piece of advice: If you think you may need to fumigate/reseed in the next year or so... no, actually if you KNOW you want to fumigate, look into it before the end of this year. It might still be possible to sign up under the old label. If you have the product sporting that old label, you can use it on those terms indefinitely.
But suppose you don’t? What options do you have? This is an interesting question going forward, and we’re interested to hear what folks in the industry are planning. The conversation starts here.
(See article on effective project communication, including more fumigation talk, at Golf Course Industry Magazine e-newsletter)
And it's a good conversation to have! Thanks for this post, I haven't heard much about this yet. MB is nasty stuff, and turf managers are stuck with it's toxicity for years afterwards.
ReplyDeleteDo you have much experience with alternatives? I hear Meta-Sodium or Ozone are options but don't know anyone with experience.
We have no experience with the Meta-Sodium or Ozone options, but are interested in learning more if those are viable alternatives. We have successfully utilized Basamid for an 18-hole putting green renovation. It's a fairly simple product to apply, but must be monitored closely (wind, water runoff) to avoid environmental impact beyond the work areas. Hopefully some successful alternatives will be developed in the near future, because the benefits of putting green renovation (more specifically poa eradication) go beyond simple playability, having positive impacts on water and chemical usage and disease control.
ReplyDeleteFirst off MB is nasty stuff, effective but nasty.
ReplyDeleteSecond, there is 0 detectible residue in the soil after complete aeration (10-12 days)
Mis information alert. Turf managers do not have
any worries with "residue" in relation to their course. The debate on ozone depletion caused by MeBr is akin to the debate on man made global warming...
MeBr is being phased out, but there is no equal
alternative at this point. Metam is nasty and very stinky (rotting eggs odor),the buffer zones are huge. Methyl Iodide is a known carcenogin (thanks EPA)but our only fumigant in the pipeline for green renovation (hopfully).
The best solution at this point would be to use some of the new VIF (virtually inpenetrable film)
and low rates of Methyl Iodide. 2-3 lbs/1000 ft2.
EPA is in no hurry to help agriculture in any matter, much less turf production. We may be years from an economically/agronomically effective solution.