JULY 1964 by the United States Golf Association RAO ENTIRE label. USE STRICTLY IN ACCOM's DIRpctWITH LABEL CAUTIONS, warningsan j eraCTI0NS; and in CONFORMITY WITH FED-.. h^AND STATE REGULATIONS. The most important 21 words in pest control DS®a ©GM 8S®« Published by the United States Golf Association (C) 1964 by United States Golf Association. Permission to reprint articles or material in THE USGA GREEN SECTION RECORD is granted to publishers of newspapers, periodicals and books (unless speci­ fically noted otherwise), provided credit is given USGA and copyright protection is afforded. Neither articles nor other material may be copied or used for any advertising, promotion or commercial purpose. VOL. 2, No. 2 July 1964 Pesticide Laws and the Golf Course .................................By William H. Bengeyfield Development, Labeling, Distribution of Turfgrass Pesticide Chemicals .................. By Dr. J. Everett Bussart 4 Pesticides—Boon or Bane? .......................................................... By Marvin H. Ferguson 10 Phenoxy Compounds and Turf Injury .............................By Lloyd Callahan, Richard 1 Ilnicki, Ralph Engel 12 Published six times a year in January, March, May, July, September and November by the UNITED STATES GOLF ASSOCIATION, 40 East 38th ST., NEW YORK, N. Y. 10016. Subscription: $2 a year. Single copies: 300. Subscriptions and address changes should be sent to the above address. Articles, photo­ graphs, and correspondence relevant to published material should be addressed to: United States Golf Association Green Section, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas. Second class postage paid at Rutherford, N. J. Office of Publication: 315 Railroad Avenue, East Rutherford, N. J. Editor: Dr. Marvin H. Ferguson Managing Editor: Don Weiss THE GREEN SECTION OF THE UNITED STATES GOLF ASSOCIATION Green Section Committee CHAIRMAN: Henry H. Russell, P.O. Box 57-697, Miami 57, Fla. DISTRICT CHAIRMEN: Northeastern: John P. English, Williamstown, Mass.; Mid-Atlantic: Martin F. McCarthy, Chevy Chase, Md. ; Southeastern: El­ bert S. Jemison, Jr., Birmingham, Ala. ; Mid­ Western: Charles N. Eckstein, Chicago, Ill.; South­ western: L. A. Stemmons, Jr., Dallas, Texas; Pacific Northwest: Edward A. Dunn, Seattle, Wash.; California: Lynn A. Smith, Pasadena, Calif. Rocky Mountain: J. W. Richardson, Magna, Utah. Green Section Agronomists and Offices EASTERN REGION Northeastern Office: P. O. Box 1237 Highland Park, N. J. Alexander M. Radko, Director, Eastern Region Holman M. Griffin, Northeastern Agronomist Raymond E. Harman, Northeastern Agronomist Lee Record, Northeastern Agronomist Southeastern Office: P.O. Box 4213, Campus Station, Athens, Ga. James B. Moncrief, Southeastern Agronomist MID-CONTINENT REGION Southwestern Office: Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas Dr. Marvin H. Ferguson, Director, Mid-Continent Region and National Research Coordinator Jerry H. Cheesman, Southwestern Agronomist Mid-Western Office: Room 221, LaSalle Hotel, James L. Holmes, Mid-Western Agronomist Chicago 2, Ill. WESTERN REGION Western Office: P.O. Box 5S7, Garden Grove, Calif. William H. Bengeyfield, Director, Western Region USGA OFFICERS AND EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE PRESIDENT: Clarence W. Benedict, White Plains, N. Y. VICE-PRESIDENTS: Wm. Ward Foshay, New York, N. Y. Hord W. Hardin, St. Louis, Mo. SECRETARY: Philip H. Strubing, Philadelphia. TREASURER: Robert K. Howse, Wichita, Kan. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE: The above officers and : Fred Brand, Jr., Pittsburgh, Pa. ; William C. Campbell, Huntington, W. Va.; Robert F. Dwyer, USGA HEADQUARTERS: “Golf House”, 40 Portland, Ore. ; Edward L. Emerson, Boston, Mass. ; Edwin R. Foley, San Francisco; J. W. McLean, Houston, Tex. ; Eugene S. Pul­ liam, Indianapolis, Ind. ; Henry H. Russell, Miami, Fla. ; Charles P. Stevenson, Buffalo, N. Y. ; Morrison Waud, Chicago, Ill. GENERAL COUNSEL: Lynford Lardner, Jr., Milwaukee, Wis. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: Joseph C. Dey, Jr. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR: P. J. Boatwright, Jr. East 38th Street, New York, N. Y. 10016 Pesticide Laws and the Golf Course By William H. Bengeyfield, Western In her highly controversial 1962 best seller, “Silent Spring”, authoress Rachel Carson vigorously stirred an already simmering pot in the agri­ cultural community. Miss Carson, who died of cancer last spring, was a brilliant and effective writer. Her last book influenced a considerable sector of the American public in opposing and pointing out the perils of pesti­ cides and other chemicals used in modern agriculture. We, in golf course maintenance, are a part of agriculture and we will inevitably be affected by the chain of events devel­ oping in this long bubbling contro­ versy. We would do well to be alert to the changing temperatures. The Crusade Every crusade of this type, i.e. forced controls through legislation, follows a certain pattern or progres­ sion toward its goal. First, there is an emotional appeal to the general public. Newspaper stories and magazine arti­ cles on the chemical poisoning of children, pets, wildlife, etc. is high voltage material. It is big news be­ cause it is unusual. Deaths caused by accidents in the home or automobile are not quite as “big” because they are not quite unusual (though there are more of them). A second impetus in the crusade comes from groups that, in addition to believing “it is in the public interest,” may have their own interest at heart as well. For example, it would not hurt your business as a commercial anplicator if there was legislation re­ quiring everyone using agricultural chemicals to be licensed. The home owner would have to call a local spray man to kill a nest of ants or control Director, USGA GREEN SECTION the black spot on his roses. Similarly, the golf course superintendent would either have to be licensed (probably for an annual fee) or hire someone else to spray fungicides, insecticides or herbicides for him. It’s hard to imagine how one would operate a golf course under these conditions. To illustrate the degree to which some thinking has reached, one leading and influential commercial applicator has publicly proposed legislating water soluble arsenic materials com­ pletely off the market! The third step of the crusade is gaining legislative action. It is on this plateau that most states stand today. Laws have been proposed on the local, state and federal level that, if passed, would place a tremendous burden on the user of chemicals and might well cause harm not only to agriculture but to public health as well. Virtually all state legislatures are considering some type of increased control over the sale and application of agricultural chemi­ cals. In one extreme case, one state has considered bringing chemical fertilizers under its hand. We in turf management have an interest and must be directly concerned with such laws. No reasonable person would oppose sound legislation in agricultural chemical control when and if a real need exists. But opposition is required when pressure groups and government agencies take arbitrary and discrimin­ atory action. Parke C. Brinkley, of the National Agricultural Chemical Asso­ ciation, stated the following before the Ribicoff Committee in Washington: “To deny a grower the use of a compound which he has used safely and effectively and force him to use JULY, 1964 1 another at a higher price would place a cost burden on him and the ultimate consumer. Further, who would say where the line would be drawn to separate ‘low’ (toxicity) and ‘high’ (toxicity) materials?” At the federal level, Congress has resisted pressure groups and has not taken untoward action. It is reviewing the entire problem with cool con­ sideration. The same cannot be said for some states. California is one of them and an example for all to see, study and heed. Sodium Arsenite Regulated As early as January 1, 1962 (Miss Carson’s book did not appear until October, 1962) the California Depart­ ment of Agriculture placed sodium arsenite under regulation as an “in­ jurious material.” This category is reserved for “any material (the Di­ rector of Agriculture) finds and deter­ mines to be injurious to persons, ani­ mals, or crops other than the pest or vegetation it is intended to destroy.” It would seem almost any agricultural chemical is eligible. The sodium ar­ senite restriction followed a public hearing in Sacramento in May, 1961. In order to use sodium arsenite in any phase of California agriculture (including the killing of weeds under a proposed asphalt pavement), the user must now obtain permission from his County Agricultural Commissioner. (The Commissioner is appointed to this office, not elected.) He does have certain guide lines he must follow before issuing a permit. Among these is the determination that the property to be sprayed must have “a good and sufficient fence or otherwise made inaccessible to grazing animals, pets and children.” When the California Department of Agriculture made its ruling on sodium arsenite, it either overlooked or ig­ nored the fact that this chemical has been safely used on golf courses in the state and throughout the nation for the past 40 years. As far as the USGA Green Section knows, it has never been responsible for a death when so used. Nevertheless, the Di­ rector of Agriculture determined it “injurious” and, therefore, under con­ trol. In treating fairway weeds, cost of control went from approximately $1 per acre for sodium arsenite to over $100 an acre when pre-emergence materials are substituted (if the golf course was not fenced). Because of the ruling, several California golf courses have been denied the use of sodium arsenite for weed control. When the Western Green Section Office learned of the new state regu­ lation, a letter of inquiry was directed to H.E. Spires, Chief, Field Crops and Agricultural Chemicals for the Cali­ fornia Department of Agriculture. His reply follows: “Sodium arsenite was placed under regulation as an injurious material effective January 1, 1962, in view of its history over the years as the causa­ tive factor in accidental deaths. Very frequently children were poisoned by exposure to this material, as were grazing animals. “The problem of complying with the regulations pertaining to injurious materials where applied to golf course fairways was recently brought to our attention for the first time by the Greens Committee of a golf course in San Diego County. “Under the provisions of the Agri­ cultural Code, permits to use sodium arsenite are issued by the County Agricultural Commissioner. San Diego County Agricultural Commissioner in­ formed us that he learned that the fairways to be treated on this golf course are accessible to children who 2 USGA GREEN SECTION RECORD play in the area and to horses on adjacent bridle paths. This caused him to be of the opinion that the proposed usage did not conform to the require­ ments of the regulations and a permit was not in order. “If a golf course is fenced or the treated area is not accessible to children, pets or grazing animals, the applicant would be eligible for a per­ mit insofar as this provision of the regulation is concerned. “You have the privilege of petition­ ing the Director of Agriculture to hold a hearing to amend the regulations; however, it appears that persons con­ templating the use of sodium arsenite would prefer to conform to the exist­ ing requirements. The conditions of the permit are only those which care­ ful users would observe to prevent accidents and the subsequent liability that would be incurred.” There are a number of points in Mr. Spires letter on which I would like to comment; accidental deaths is one. No one could possibly defend an acci­ dental death, whether it be man or child; yet it is a fact we must all live with from the day we are born. Fur­ thermore, it seems most unlikely that any federal or state government will ever legislate “accidental deaths” out of existence. This would be asking too much. Becoming overly and emotionally concerned with accidental deaths of children due to agricultural chemicals is easy to do. However, there are more accidental deaths of children due to swallowing aspirin and other medicine chest items than from all agricultural chemicals. Even bee stings have a high accidental death rate among children. It is a fact that the chemical tools of agriculture have a safer accident and fatality record than mechanical tools; yet we do not hear of legislation out­ lawing or regulating the use of tractors or harvesters. But that day may also come. When one looks at the national health picture, it is difficult to detect any catastrophic trend that may be attributed to the wide use of pesticides in agriculture. The opposite is true. A child born in 1940 had an average life expectancy of 62.9 years. Those born in 1959 have life expectancy of 69.7 years. The Privilege To Petition Mr. Spires advises that we have “the privilege of petitioning the Director of Agriculture to hold a hearing to amend the regulations.” Unfortunately, the golf course superintendent or any turf­ grass association for that matter lacks the funds for a legal or lobbying staff to follow through the legalistic maze. And more regulations are on the way, for Californians at least. A University weed specialist, writing in “California Turfgrass Culture,” (October 1963) commends the sodium arsenite ruling and advises “we should consider sub­ stitutes for lead and calcium arsenate in crabgrass control in turf.” Ap­ parently, they are next. “There Ought To Be A Law” It’s typically American. When some­ one or some group becomes stirred up, their first thought is, “there ought to be a law against that.” And the aver­ age legislator in any State House seems eager to write a new law, usually with his name attached. Per­ haps we have reached the point in agriculture where there are enough laws already and they cover most situations. They may need enforcement but not through growing governmental controls. Anyone interested in golf course maintenance has a stake in the prob­ lem of agricultural chemical controls. JULY, 1964 3 The outcome will directly affect you and your program. As best you can, be alert to pending legislation. Be aware of pressure groups. Resolve to handle all chemicals carefully and condemn those who do not. Through intelligent cooperation with all con­ cerned, a solution—short of rigid and largely unnecessary new laws—will be found. Development, Labeling, Distribution of Turfgrass Pesticide Chemicals* By Dr. J. Everett Bussort, Chief Entomologist, Velsicol Chemical Corporation, Chicago, Illinois I wonder what thoughts the title of this paper brings to each of you. To business executives it prob­ ably creates visions of new uses for chemical products and the eco­ nomic implications involved. To sales­ men it may raise expectations for new lines of persuasion to complement those that may have lost their fresh­ ness. To technologists it could recall memories of endless laboratory and field testing. To theoretical scientists it may give hopes of a new “break­ through” in the scientific field. To the consumer, it may give a feeling of satisfaction to know a new potent chemical is available. Or, it also may bring confusion as to availability and proper use for this material. At any rate, it is a subject that is much broader than the simple title may im­ ply. When invited to present this topic, I thought of the extremely broad sub­ ject and could hardly visualize dis­ cussing this topic in 30 minutes. Then I considered the part Velsicol Chemi­ cal Corporation has had in the turf­ grass chemical control program. As you know, chlordane and heptachlor have wide acceptance of usage in the various insect control programs. Also, chlordane has gained acceptance as a pre-emergence application for crab- grass control. Just at this time we are evaluating other chemicals for use in the Turfgrass Pesticide Chemical Con­ trol Programs such as a fungicide for the control of various diseases of turf and also some selective herbicides. Hence, with products now being used as well as others being evaluated in the Turfgrass Control Programs, I believe you can realize we have faced this topic various times and I speak from experiences in the various steps necessary in placing a new product on the market. First, let us look at the subject in relation to the broader aspects of the producing and consuming public with which a pesticide is ultimately con­ cerned. Turfgrass pesticides must be used under a variety of soils and cli­ mate and management practices that are constantly changing. As a result, the circumstances under which a turfgrass pesticide is used are never the same from state to state or even from one town to another and even within a given area. The control of the pests has to be attempted under these diverse conditions. Furthermore, living things have great powers to adapt to environmen­ tal change and the agricultural en­ vironment is changing both naturally and through the efforts of man. Thus, *Reprinted from Proceedings of the Fifteenth Annual author. Texas Turfgrass Conference. By permission of the 4 USGA GREEN SECTION RECORD when a new pesticide is applied, it is introduced into a situation that is living and changing and may even be changed as result of the application. Agency Responsibilities Let us now consider the responsibili­ ties of the various agencies concerned with the development and use of a new turfgrass pesticide. Various Federal Experiment Stations, State Experiment Stations, and other in­ stitutions which may or may not be privately owned, contribute to the knowledge of a pesticide through both testing and research. However, I pro­ pose to refer to the responsibilities of the chemical industry and of Federal or State Government Offices that are vitally concerned. Industry’s essential objectives are to develop new pesticides and to get them legally on the market with as little delay as possible. Since industry develops new pesticides for sale, it has the primary interest in securing the information required by law for registering such products for sale. This would entail responsibility for securing physical and chemical prop­ erties of the pesticide, procuring re­ liable data on the toxicity to various pests, plants, warm-blooded animals, including the applicator, fish or wild­ life as well as to provide the essential information for pharmacological pur­ poses. To carry out these responsibili­ ties, industry must undertake the syn­ thesis of new chemical compounds and the study of their evaluation in tests to determine the performance under field conditions similar to those for which their use will be recommended. Individual companies may vary in whole or in part in discharging these responsibilities but usually they sup­ ply samples of the candidate pesticide to Federal or State Experiment Sta­ tions for evaluation. JULY, 1964 Possibly the easiest way to show the progress or development of a new pesticide is to follow the outline to show the steps in development and marketing of a chemical. Each stage of development, such as biology, chem­ istry or toxicology, is being evaluated simultaneously. However, for the ease of following the stages of development we will follow each individually up to marketing. BIOLOGY From various evaluation studies it is necessary to compile data to deter­ mine the pests against which the chemical is effective. Also to establish the correct dosage to apply as well as the proper timing of applications. It is necessary to determine the effects of temperature, light, rain, soil type and fertility on the effectiveness of the candidate material. As indicated in the outline, initial screening tests will give an indication of the possible pests that may be controlled. This is followed by laboratory or small plot tests to establish the dosage needed to give effective control. Finally, large scale or field tests are used to secure information on the control obtained under similar application methods as will be used by the ultimate consumer when the chemical is marketed. The last step before placing a material on the market is to secure label regis­ tration from the U.S. Department of Agriculture as well as individual states that have Pesticide Laws. Naturally, all information obtained from the entire outline is necessary in securing the label registration. All the claims we make on a label must be carefully worded since they must be the truth in the language the con­ sumer understands. CHEMISTRY The outline for chemistry has been divided into three studies in the devel­ 5 opment of a turfgrass pesticide until marketed. Possibly these divisions could be called Production, Formula­ tion and Analytical. A. Formulation—A proper formu­ lation is necessary since this often determines the success or failure of a pesticide. Various types of formula­ tions are emulsifiable concentrate, wettable powder, dust or granular. The formulation must be easy to use, designed to get the chemical to the site of action in the most efficient form, and must be economical. The chemical must be stable in storage for periods of a year or longer and must not be affected by extremes in temperature from below O°F. to above 100°F. The formulation must not separate nor block during this storage period since many formula­ tions have separated or hardened, such as a chunk of concrete six months later. Containers and container weights must be determined in this develop­ ment program. This would include the size and type of container, whether glass, stainless steel, plain iron or resin- lined. Those of you that have not had the experience of being unable to get two pounds of material in a five- pound container have not adequately investigated bulk density of the new product. The chemical properties of the new product must be developed and placed in the technical literature at the time the product is introduced to the market. B. Production—The first laboratory prepared sample is very small such as one or two grams or less. If this sample shows promise in the prelimin­ ary screening evaluation tests, then slightly larger samples must be pre­ pared until the product is ready to be moved into the pilot plant. Process development is necessary to find how the product can be made most eco­ nomically—first in the pilot plant and finally in the large scale plant. This process development should begin as as soon as a new pesticide shows pro­ mise in order to supply quantities of the product for development purposes and operating data for the design of large scale plant. Engineering is necessary for the design, erection and initial operation of the most economical plant. The Chemical Engineering Department prepares a report at this stage which furnishes rough estimates of costs and return on investment at estimated sales prices and volumes. Concurrent with the later stages of research and the engineering and erecting of suitable production facili­ ties, a market development must be considered. This market study would determine the possible markets as well as the potential for each market. All of this survey is necessary to pro­ vide the Chemical Engineers with enough information as to the possible size of the production plant to produce the necessary quantity of the new pesticide. C. Analytical—If a pesticide is to be used on food crops it is necessary to develop a chemical analysis method to establish the possible residues on the raw agricultural crop harvested. These residues are not as important when the pesticide is applied to turf­ grass, however, a chemical cannot be developed for a specific use but must be included in various control pro­ grams to provide sufficient production to insure economical use. If no resi­ dues are found, then the product may be registered on a “no-residue” basis under the Federal Insecticide, Fungi­ cide and Rodenticide Act. When residues are found to occur on food crops, a tolerance must be 6 USGA GREEN SECTION RECORD established by a petition to the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration. The USDA decides if the product is useful and renders an opinion as to the cor­ rectness of the residue data. The Food and Drug Administration then examines the amount of residues found and if not considered harmful at the levels found will publish the tolerance. The USDA will then register an ap­ propriate label for the pesticide. TOXICOLOGY The first preliminary acute tests are made on rats or other laboratory animals to determine the range of toxicity to warm-blooded animals. If the pesticide shows promise then long term animal feeding studies are run concurrently with the large scale biology field studies. The compound is added in various dosage levels to the diets of rats and perhaps other animals. The effects on the animals are carefully noted and compared at various dietary levels. During the course of the experi­ ments, periodic examinations are made of the blood and general condition of the animals along with organ function tests. Periodically during the feeding tests, small groups of the animals are sacrificed and detailed examinations of their tissues are made. At the termination of the experiments the BIOLOGY Initial Screening Tests Effectiveness by Laboratory Tests Small Plot Tests to Establish Dosage Large Scale Tests Regional Large Field Tests DEVELOPMENT, LABELING AND DISTRIBUTION OF TURFGRASS PESTICIDE CHEMICALS CHEMISTRY Laboratory Prepared Sample Larger Laboratory T Pilot Plant Initial Formulation Studies Study of Analytical Methods Stability of Formulations Development of Analytical Methods Process Development for Manufacturing Plant I Market Potential and Plans for Manufacturing I Evaluation of Formulations Evaluation of Formulations Label Registration Building Manufacturing Plant Evaluation of Formulations DISTRIBUTION OR MARKETING Residues Residues Determine Margin of Safety and Establish Tolerances TOXICOLOGY Preliminary Acute Tests Begin Acute and Dermal Toxicity Investigations Continue Acute and Dermal Toxicity Tests Begin Chronic Toxicity Tests I Chronic Toxicity Studies Chronic Toxicity Studies Precautionary Statements Necessary JULY, 1964 7 remainder are sacrificed and carefully examined. By applying appropriate safety factors to these long-term studies, it is possible to estimate the amount of the residue which will be safe in human food. After the toxicity studies are com­ pleted and the results fully evaluated the necessary precautionary state­ ments that may be necessary on labels for safe use of the pesticide are estab­ lished. Finally you may be interested in the possible cost in developing a pesti­ cide through all of these research programs which involves three or more years. The outline gives an estimated cost for the development of a new pesticide. It is difficult to give an ac­ curate estimate of the total costs for development but it is commonly agreed that it will vary from $775,000 to over $3,000,000. ESTIMATED COSTS FOR DEVELOPMENT OF A NEW PESTICIDE CHEMICAL Synthesis 100 - 1500 Compounds Preliminary Screening Market Analysis Select about 10 Most Promising Compounds Prepare 50 - 500 Grams Each Secondary Screening Acute Toxicology Phytotoxicity Testing Patent Applications Select 1-3 Compounds, prepare 25 - 100 Pounds Analytical Methods Development Biological Performance Field Tests State Chronic Toxicity Studies Flavor and Quality Studies Residue Analysis Formulation Studies Experimental Label Registration Pilot Plant Production - 1 Compound Advanced Field Testing and Comparisons Residue Analysis Conclude Toxicology Studies Process Studies and Plant Design Petitions for Tolerances Label Registration Build Full Scale Manufacturing Facilities Packaging Chemical Labeling Chemical Sales Literature Recommendations Market Expansion Estimated Cost in Thousands of Dollars $ 50 - $ 150 50 - 150 75 - 300 100 - 500 500 - 2,000 Total Costs . . . . $775,000—$3,100,000 USGA GREEN SECTION RECORD 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 8 AM^. UIXC L^DtL. Ubt Ol Klk- I L I >>’ '■ aK1D terr^™ LABEL CAUTIONS' WAftN!«,?H FED- fSCT 0NS; and |N conformity WITH KLAND state regulations. The most important 21 words in pest control You see those 21 words—or words like them — on every pesticide container you buy. They’re the whole key to pesticide performance. It takes thousands of hours of test­ ing to come up with label directions. Laboratory and field tests conducted by professional chemists and agricul­ tural scientists. Tests that have to meet the most stringent standards of government agencies. But the important thing is what happens when you use the product. Those thousands of hours of tests behind the label directions have but one purpose: to help you get the safest, most effective and economical pest control possible. And following those directions is the only way to make sure you’re getting it. That’s why it’s so important to read and understand the label before using any chemical product. NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL CHEMICALS ASSOCIATION 1145 Nineteenth, N. W. Washington 6, D. C. Reprinted by courtesy of National Agricultural Chemicals Association. JULY, 1964 9 Pesticides - Boon or Bane? By Marvin H. Ferguson, Mid-Continent Director, National Research Coordinator, USGA Green Sectiorr The use of pesticides has accounted for a great deal of the progress that has been made in golf course management in the last two decades. Chemicals for the control of specific weeds, for the control of insects, for the control of diseases, for growth regulating purposes, and for repelling pests such as rabbits and deer are examples of uses for which we depend upon the products of pesticide re­ search. Our use of chemical materials on the golf course is paralleled by similar uses in other phases of agriculture. Our dependence upon pesticides has provided a tremendous market and the burgeoning agricultural chemical in­ dustry seeks to provide the needs of a consumer who, technologically is becoming increasingly sophisticated. An example of the speed with which this industry is moving may be seen in the number of listings in The Pesticide Handbook by D. E. H. Frear. In 1958, the Handbook listed 6,129 pesticide products. In 1962, a total of 9,444 products was listed. Research in all state supported agricultural experiment stations seeks to find more completely specific herbi­ cides. We need materials which have residual effects of varying lengths of time. We need pre-emergence materials and post-emergence materials. A con­ stant search is underway for cheaper, more specific, more effective, safer, and more predictable products. In the areas of insecticidal and fungicidal research, the investigator likewise seeks effectiveness over a controlled period of time. He seeks low mammalian toxicity and low phytotoxicity. He seeks selectivity. Above all, the investigator seeks a product that can be handled safely by anyone who may have occasion to use it. The matter of safety to human health, to birds, to fish, and to animals has come to be a matter of consider­ able interest on the part of the Ameri­ can public. Much unfavorable, unfortunate, and unfair publicity has been generated by writers who produce sensational “scare type” headlines. Exaggeration of fish kills, bird kills, and sensational accounts of accidental human poison­ ings have combined to feed the fears of those who may have been impressed by the dangers of pesticide usage. Testing Procedures The truth of the matter is that the developers of any kind of pesticide must go through such a rigorous and expensive series of testing procedures that many potentially useful (and per­ haps safer and more specific) products are not processed because the devel­ oper may doubt that the available market will justify his expenditure. That the procedure is technically in­ volved and expensive is borne out by statements of Dr. J. Everett Bussart in another article in this issue. He estimates the cost of developing and preparing a new product for market to range between $775,000 and $3,100,000. The producers and users of agri­ cultural chemicals are not alone in the dilemma that seems always to ac­ company technological progress. Drug manufacturers are haunted by possi­ ble harmful side effects of compounds which successfully combat specific ills. The enormous benefits that may ac­ crue from the use of nuclear energy are accompanied by the potentially dangerous presence of increased 10 USGA GREEN SECTION RECORD radioactivity in the human environ­ ment. Even the marvels of modern transportation and automation are not without the detracting spectre of more deaths by accident. It would appear then, that the duty of responsible spokesmen in this area of science would be to paint a realistic picture for the American public. Most of the people concerned are not scientifically trained. They are ill equipped to evaluate the writings of the responsible reporter in comparison with those of the sensationalist. Pesticides are necessary in the agri­ culture of this era. The population of the United States could not be fed without the use of agricultural chemi­ cals. Golf courses would revert to much less pleasant conditions without modern methods of controlling weeds, insects, and diseases. Pesticides handled properly present very little danger to man, to wildlife, to fish, or to the other factors con­ tributing to man’s environment. The key words of the foregoing statement are “handled properly.” These words might be applied just as appropriately to automobiles, to fire, to electricity, or to mouthwash. All can be lethal when not “handled properly.” It would appear that all who are involved in the use or commerce of pesticides have an obligation to be aware of the potential dangers in­ herent in the materials they use. Used carefully in accordance with the in­ structions of the manufacturer, stored safely, and handled with a knowledge of possible effects upon plants, ani­ mals, and man, pesticides can continue to do an increasingly more effective and safe job of controlling the pests that beset us. COMING EVENTS July 7 Turfgrass Field Day Texas A&M University College Station, Texas August 12-13 Turfgrass Field Days Rutgers University New Brunswick, N. J. September 9 Turfgrass Field Day Virginia Polytechnic Institute Blacksburg, Virginia September 14-15 Midwest Regional Turf Field Days Purdue University Lafayette, Indiana September 18 Fall Field Day Illinois Turfgrass Foundation Urbana, Illinois JULY, 1964 11 Phenoxy Compounds and Turf Injury Engel, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey By Lloyd Callahan, Richard llnicki, Ralph Turf injury from 2,4-D, 2,4,5-T, and silvex herbicides has been suspected and demonstrated on occasions. In a study nearing completion, silvex was injurious to both top and root growth of Colonial and creeping bentgrass. Injury to top growth occurred in most of the treatments and it appeared as discoloration and thinning. Root growth was reduced in total growth and extensiveness by most treatment rates. Other effects from silvex treat­ ments were lower drought tolerance, decreased food reserves in roots, and tissue abnormalities of the roots. Since silvex and related compounds are very effective herbicides, it is still logical to use these chemicals and assume the risk of injury on many turf areas. If this is done, careful consideration might be given to factors that will reduce the chance of serious injury. Bentgrass was more tolerant to silvex when grown at cooler tempera­ tures. Early to mid-spring application of silvex after the first flush of new growth was one of the safer periods for treatment. Applications in Octo­ ber, with cooler temperatures, ap­ peared less safe. Late summer to early fall appears very risky if the weather is hot or the grass is weak. The amount of injury from treatments made in the later portion of the grow­ ing season was higher than expected. This result might be associated with the grass needs for recovery and re­ building of food reserves during this period. Applications in late spring with the approaching hot weather are inadvisable especially if supplement­ ary water is not available in dry, hot periods. Hot weather and summer treatments are not recommended if there is need for safety. Seedling bentgrass was far less tolerant to silvex 2,4-D, and other phenoxy compounds than more mature bentgrass. Other grasses showed the same relationship, but they were less sensitive than bentgrass. The minimal rate of y2 pound per acre of silvex is much safer to bent- Silvex, applied to Colonial bentgrass seedlings 10 weeks old, produced serious effects upon the root systems. From left to right, the plants in the photo were treated with 0, 1/2, 1, 1-1/2, and 3 pounds of silvex per acre, respectively. 12 USGA GREEN SECTION RECORD grass than rates of % to 1 pound per acre or higher. If the weed of concern is easy to kill, the lower rate of x/z pound per acre is the logical choice. Higher rates should not be used with­ out recognition of the greater risk that will be incurred. Since a significant degree of risk is involved, chemicals such as silvex, 2,4-D, 2,4,5-T, and other phenoxy com­ pounds might be used only on those portions of the turf area where there is a significant quantity of weeds. ROYCE 0. CORNELIUS NACA News, April 1964 After sifting through the case histories and the conflicting reports of pesticide applications in the past, we reach a conclusion that is in­ escapable. Pesticides are of great benefit to society, yet they can be dangerous. Similarly, anesthetics, X- rays, and new drugs have been of in­ calculable value in alleviating suffer­ ing and restoring health to mankind. Yet these beneficial materials, unless used with scientific care, are deadly killers. So it is with pesticides, which have been used at times without a proper sense of understanding and responsibility. Certainly we must all work toward improving the under­ standing and careful use of these materials. While additional safety is desirable, this is not the time to build a pyramid of legislation and regu­ lations on suppositions. Rather, this is the time to expand our already con­ siderable knowledge. We must know more about pesticides rather than use them less. Much of the criticism of pesticides has been general and sweeping. All users have been tarred with the same brush. This is unfortunate, for hazard differs widely according to use. TOXICOLOGY* The 18-Hole Itch The 51-year-old automobile-repair instructor had a flaming eczemalike eruption on his hands and arms, neck, face and legs. He told the University of Pennsylvania’s Dermatologist Wal­ ter B. Shelley that he had first had it in 1959, soon after he took up golf. For the next two years it got bad in summer, better in winter. But after the 1962 season began, it stayed bad. He had noticed, the patient said, that it became “explosively worse” after he walked past workers spraying the greens. That was the doctor’s clue. The patient was given a cortisone- type drug and kept off the golf course. Within a week, he was much better. Then Dr. Shelley checked the spray used on the greens. It was a fungicide, and its active ingredient was thiram, a notorious cause of allergies. Since thiram is still used in processing rubber, Dr. Shelley notes in this week’s A.M.A. Journal, “the thiram-sensitive individual must avoid such varied rubber products as art-gum erasers, bunion pads, eyelash curlers, condoms, gloves, goggles, dress shields, dental dams, bathing caps, headrests, garters, pessaries, elasticized garments, and mammary prostheses.” And now, golf courses. Dr. Shelley has added an extra hazard to the known perils of the 19th hole. Thiram is close chemical kin to disulfiram (Antabuse), which makes people sick when they drink. A golfer sensitized on the greens may have a serious reaction at the bar. *Time Magazine, May 8, 1964 Editor’s Note: Thiram is a widely used golf course fungicide. It has been used regularly on most golf courses for more than twenty years. It has been known to cause a temporary dermatitus, but apparently it is a very rare occurrence for one to be seriously affected by this material. 13 USGA GREEN SECTION RECORD USGA GREEN SECTION RECORD 40 East 38th Street, New York, N. Y. 10016 TURF TWISTERS OVERSEEDING Question: We have been told that maleic hydrazide is useful in over­ seeding. Is this true? How is it used? Answer: Yes, but caution should be observed. MH-30 has shown much promise in retarding bermudagrass when sprayed one week before overseeding for winter play. Aerate and vertical mow 3 to 4 weeks before seeding date. Al­ low the grass to recover to the normal putting condition and spray with 1/2 ounce of acid and not over 3/4 ounce in 2 gallons of water per 1,000 square feet. Spray in the morning while it is cool, after mowing. Expect some discoloration of the bermuda. The third day, little or no clippings will be caught in the basket. Irrigate the greens thoroughly so any chemical will be washed into the soil. One week after spraying, drench the greens with fungicide and seed your mixture into the bermuda. Topdress lightly and keep the seeds moistened until they germinate and begin to grow. Use fung­ icide regularly to reduce damping off disease activity. One or two years of trial runs on small areas would be advisable until you learn to use the chemical. MULCHING Question: This year we plan to mulch our bermuda (Tifgreen) greens during the winter months in order to try to avoid the winter- kill we experienced last year. We plan to use cottonseed hulls. Is this a good material? (Oklahoma). Answer: We have had no experience with cottonseed hulls used for this purpose. It is our opinion, however, that such a material may pack too tightly after it becomes wet. You may have more trouble from “suffocation” and disease activity than you would have from winterkill. May we suggest that you use something like clean oat or wheat straw. Use a blanket of this material 4 to 8 inches thick. Secure it by the use of pegs and criss-crossed strings to prevent its being blown away. Remove it as soon as danger of freezing has passed in the spring.