 |
 |
Parks & Rec Business
| The Debate Begins Integrated Pest Management Balancing stewardship of sports fields with stewardship of nature By Randy Gaddo ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- We recently faced a situation in Peachtree City, Georgia involving fertilization and pest control of sports fields that could become more and more common across the nation. We chose to handle the situation in a certain way – we hope the right way. It involves implementation of an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) program aimed at developing cultural and operational practices and using products that ultimately minimize – not eliminate, but minimize – the volume of chemicals used to keep youth and adult recreational athletic fields maintained. We are now in the very preliminary stages of this endeavor that will no doubt take years to develop. It is proving to be a learn-as-you–go process. When I discussed the IPM concept with the editor of Parks & Rec Business, it led to this -- the first in a series of articles that will share the experience as we go through it with readers of Parks & Rec Business. I must honestly admit that part of the reason I agreed to do the series is because I hope someone out there will know lots more about this than I do and offer assistance. My research thus far into IPM’s indicates that the concept is not uncommon in care of agricultural crops or golf courses, but when it comes to use in youth recreational sports fields, there doesn’t appear to be a blueprint…or at least I haven’t found it yet. So, with that background, let me tell you how this all started here. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- About a year ago, we got word from a parent who thought that his child and possibly others had reactions to the chemicals used on fields. We looked into the matter and didn’t find a clear cause and effect connection; however, in the process I also began to learn more about alternate methods of controlling pests – especially weeds – on sports fields. I continue to learn more than I ever thought I would about the science of weeds and pests and what it takes to keep them from destroying fields. Nothing I could write for this article can really do justice to how complicated this really is. The more I learn the more questions pop up and that leads down other avenues. But ultimately, it comes down to several key questions that form the basis of research: Are the chemicals, whether synthetic or “organic,” used to treat weeds, insects, fungus and other pests bad for human health? Are there products other than the widely used synthetic fertilizers, herbicides, insecticides and fungicides that will work as effectively? Are “organic” products better than “synthetic” products? Are there other more “natural” ways to control weeds and pests and still ensure that the fields are safe, playable and aesthetically attractive? A Blue Ribbon Panel Not being even a knowledgeable novice at this, I needed to bring in some technical expertise in order to respond to these questions. To do this, I arranged a public workshop and made sure everyone knew about it. I put together a “blue ribbon” panel consisting of experts who mostly all had “Ph.D.” behind their name and in some cases a lot of other very impressive acronyms. The University of Georgia Extension Service has provided me excellent assistance throughout this process, and they sent three PhD’s who were turf, insect and weed experts. I even got the UGA professor who is the IPM guru. I made contact with Emory University and they provided a medical doctor from their school of medicine who specializes in effects that chemicals have on children. Two doctors from Emory’s Rollins School of Medicine who specialize in research on the effects of pesticides on children heard about the issue and offered to conduct a study in conjunction with the IPM implementation. They were also on the panel. UGA’s land application specialist was there to address questions on various forms of soil amendments. The state department of agriculture dispatched one of their managers to talk about the regulatory aspects of the topic. So, on Nov. 29, 2005 I introduced this venerable panel to about 50 workshop attendees that included interested parents, product dealers, pesticide application providers, recreation staffs from our city and other jurisdictions and the media. What happened was a bit surprising. An Emotional Issue Understand that this is a very emotional issue. Parents involved were concerned for their children’s health. Product dealers and service providers were concerned with the reputation of their products and services. Recreation staff members were attempting to explore best-practice options and the media was looking for a story. The panelists were well aware of the pensive emotional level and probably felt a bit apprehensive as well. The workshop started with each panelist giving a briefing on his or her specialty in the field to establish credibility. Then came the question and answer period. (See separate side bar reporting on this workshop.) The central issue was the question of whether or not application of synthetic pesticides on sports fields adversely affects the general health and well being of youth using the fields. After nearly two hours of discussion, the bottom line was that FDA-approved pesticides applied by licensed applicators according to instructions provided for each product presented no immediate risk to most children. This also depended on strict adherence to the policy of not allowing activity on treated areas for a minimum of 24 hours after treatment. It also became clear that the chemicals could have an effect on children with asthma, allergies or other health-related issues. However, it would be very difficult to directly associate a cause-and-effect connection due to the many other environmental or cultural factors that can contribute to such effects. Interestingly enough, many of the parents present who were making that connection also used the same chemicals to treat their lawns at home. More than one of the panelists made the point that most homes had more dangerous chemicals under their kitchen sinks than the diluted and controlled applications made to sports fields. However, one of the more profound messages that came from the workshop was that our world is filled with any number of chemical pollutants that can affect our health and our children’s. The air we breathe, the food we eat and the water or beverages we drink consist of either synthetic or “organic” chemicals that, alone or in combination with others, could lead to health problems. Synthetic vs. Organic Another key conundrum that surfaced was the question of which are better and safer, synthetic or “organic” pesticides and fertilizers. Some concerned parents were calling for the city to immediately switch from synthetic to “organic” products because they figured if it was organic, it was safe. The UGA turf specialists (Doctors Gil Landry and Tim Murphy) and IPM guru (Dr. Paul Guillibeaux) emphasized the point that no matter which form a chemical takes, it is still the same chemical and can have the same effect on humans. So without careful examination there was no guarantee that organic applications would be better. A point to be made is that the synthetic products undergo strict FDA and other regulatory scrutiny before being approved for use, whereas most of the organics do not. So while organic may indeed be effective, there most often isn’t data to show how safe it is for use where children are present. The “organic versus synthetic” dilemma is in itself an entire field of study. There are pros and cons on both sides and without prudent study of each product it is chancy to say one is better than another. Then there is the subject of land applications that make the soil healthier. These applications can come from many different base sources; animal waste, human waste, plant waste. The general theory is that if you make the soil healthier the turf grass will develop a healthier root zone and thicker thatch that will choke out weeds, requiring fewer pesticides. However, here again, because most of these products don’t go through the regulatory approval process of synthetic products, there is no certainty that they don’t pose a health risk. Also there is a stigma carried with the subject of applying “biosolids” to fields where children will play. The general consensus of the panel was that parents assumed the responsibility to exercise personal risk management if they felt that the approved pesticides used on fields affected their children. Since only a minute percentage of the more than 1,500 children using the fields complained of symptoms, there didn’t seem to be a systemic problem with the pesticides. However, as stewards of not only the fields but also the general welfare of our citizens, we feel that a minimization of pesticide use is the right thing to do. So we have embarked on this IPM journey. We’re not sure where it will lead or how long it will take to get there. But as they say, a long journey starts with the first step, which is what we’ve taken. I’ll keep readers of Parks & Rec Business posted on our progress, and hopefully one day will be able to report healthier and safer fields with fewer pesticides. Randy Gaddo is Director of Parks, Recreation and Library Services in Peachtree City, Georgia and a frequent contributor to Parks & Rec Business. Watch for his IPM updates in future issues. He can be contacted at rgaddo@ptcgovernment.org. |
||
All contents contained within this website may not be reproduced or disseminated without expressed written permission from the Publisher.