Gilba Solutions Pty Ltd

It is increasingly commonplace in the turf industry for Managers to try and do the right thing in relation to  monitoring the environmental impact and using lower risk inputs,  whether these  be  for example fungicides or fertilizers .  Gone are the days of the mercuric fungicides! This is an  admirable approach  but a major issue  is that there is little by way of good information on the non - target impact of preventative (or curative for that matter) programmes.   Spraying to manage one disease can in fact encourage other diseases. In 1995 Eric Nelson discussed the  non-target  effects of fungicides in depth. The actual manner in which this disease enhancement occurs depends on the specific environment  in which  applications are made.   The main reason this occur s  is that by spraying to deal with a fungal pathogen, you in turn cause a reduction in  competition from other  non-p athogenic antagonistic microbes. This reduction leads other pathogenic species  to  proliferate  and be

  I love off the cuff marketing statements such as “the turf management practice that does most damage to soil microbes, is synthetic fertilisation”. Not fungicides or any of the wide range of chemicals and wetting agents that are used in the turf industry but synthetic fertilisers.   When it’s taken into account that this statement is made by a company that is promoting its own range of biologically enhanced fertilisers in direct competition to these “bad boys” one does tend to be a touch cynical. This same company also conveniently fails to mention the impact of fungicides that they supply on soil microbial populations. But why let that get in the way of a good story!   The turf industry is unique for a whole host of reasons but one of the key ones is that quite often turf managers are trying to grow grass in a completely unnatural environment . A USGA spec golf green for example, is not a natural environment and in reality it can be best described as a hydroponic medium which