By Staff
Athletic Management, 18.6, October/November 2006, http://www.momentummedia.com/articles/am/am1806/wupesticides.htm
It’s easy for administrators to feel caught between the need to have lush, green fields for athletes to play on and concerns about pesticide use. More and more states are adopting laws that require notification before pesticides can be applied, and complaints about pesticide use from neighbors and parents are increasing. Yet athletes still need safe playing surfaces, and no one wants to look at weed-ridden or patchy fields.
As a result, many schools have turned to Integrated Pest Management (IPM), a system that produces safe and attractive playing fields while keeping pesticide use to a minimum. Instead of relying on pesticides as the first line of defense against pests and weeds, IPM practitioners focus on other ways to keep fields healthy, such as irrigation, over-seeding, aeration, and fertilization.
As Head Groundskeeper at North Rockland High School in Thiells, N.Y., Frank Trotta has been using IPM to maintain the school’s playing fields for the past 18 years. He says IPM is nothing more than a decision-making process that entails determining if a pest problem exists, analyzing management options, and selecting the treatment strategy that makes the most sense.
“The old-fashioned method was based on the calendar and pesticide products,” Trotta says. “You applied this product in April, that product in August, and another product in October. All you really were was an applicator.
“IPM is based on knowledge,” he continues. “You have to know how to grow grass and keep it healthy, because healthy turf will provide a better playing surface and at the same time is not conducive to weeds.”
Trotta compares IPM to healthcare. “Doctors often write prescriptions to address symptoms,” he says. “IPM practitioners don’t write prescriptions to address symptoms, they go after the root of the problems. And they do all they can to keep their turf grass from becoming a patient in the first place, just like people who try to eat properly and exercise to avoid getting sick.”
Part of the process is constant monitoring of turf health. This may mean regularly taking soil samples to count the grubs or tracking the number of weeds on fields throughout the year.
“One difference with IPM is that you have to go out and look for problems,” Trotta says. “You’re guided by the calendar, but not a slave to it. You have to understand pest biology so you know to look for a particular problem at a particular point in the growing season. It’s not chasing phantom pests.”
Another key aspect of IPM is establishing your own standards for turf quality. While groundskeepers at NFL fields may need to be vigilant for the appearance of even a single dandelion, most school facilities won’t be marred by the occasional weed or two.
“Just because you see a pest doesn’t mean you have a pest problem,” Trotta says. “Each site needs its own specific threshold. For example, at Yankee Stadium, where they have two acres, two dandelions are too many. My football fields cover over 57,000 square feet and if there’s two dandelions on my facility, that’s not a pest problem. I can live with two dandelions.”
There’s a misconception that IPM eliminates all use of pesticides, but Trotta stresses that is not realistic. He still applies them when needed to keep the turf healthy, which has turned out to be about every five years. “IPM means considering all options, and one option can be pesticides,” he says. “There are times when that is the best and most sensible approach, such as when weed encroachment passes a certain point.”
Although it will reduce the amount of money spent on pesticides, Trotta says IPM should not be viewed as a cost-saving measure. The procedures used to keep turf healthy have costs of their own. “Overseeding is a must in order to maintain a dense layer of turf that will crowd out weeds, and that costs money,” Trotta says. “You also need to fertilize regularly to help turf resist pest pressure, and aerate regularly to prevent root compaction, which can weaken turf.
“But just like physical plant expenses, the money spent is really an investment,” he continues. “With all the wear and tear fields face, they can go downhill very quickly. So if you want good, safe facilities, you have to make the effort.”
More information on Integrated Pest Management for school grounds can be obtained from The IPM Institute of North America at: www.ipminstitute.org/school_grounds.htm.