Pesticides, Eliminating the use of

Whilst this significantly reduces, or eliminates, contamination and pollution of the environment from harmful substances, providing many benefits to wildlife, plants and humans, there can be numerous limitations and challenges which arise from eliminating pesticide use. These can include:
• Increasing likelihood of the frequency and extent of damage from weeds, pests and diseases.
• Increase in time and subsequent labour costs to carry out alternative control methods, especially an increase in time allocated for manual / physical and mechanical activities to reduce the conditions which are favourable for weed, pest and disease colonisation or attack.
• Being able to adequately resource a grounds maintenance work programme where staff availability and skills shortages exist.
• An increased risk of reduced surface quality, especially presentational quality, in the short term where previously pesticide controls could more speedily control harmful organisms.
• A potential increase in minor injuries, caused from reduced traction due to weed growth or periodic thinner swards from disease or pest damage.

The challenges posed by eliminating pesticide use will need to be addressed through reflecting on the social construct of what is meant by a ‘quality surface’, in particular the apparent need or desire to have a pristinely manicured surface at all times: Why has this become accepted as the norm?

Explaining the relationship between needs and wants from a turfgrass surface and the wider environmental and financial benefits that can arise from reducing pesticide use can often be drowned out by the argument that a quality surface cannot be produced without their use. This is a false argument, although whilst it is certainly much easier to produce a quality surface with the routine use of pesticides, this should not be an excuse for their continued use on a regular basis.

A significant underlying reason for this problem of continually using pesticides is also through numerous other related factors, including a lack of education and training by some employers, poorer working conditions compared with many other industries, lower salaries and limited benefits, the perception that the work is often unskilled, the lack of investment in the grounds care industry since the late 1980s, and a lack of resources to enable ground staff to adequately maintain a surface. This all leads to the easy option of relying on pesticides to make up for the many failings elsewhere, but something which is not addressed by industry bodies due to various reasons, with one persuasive argument is that it is due to the influence pesticide and related manufacturers and suppliers with these bodies and the concern they would lose significant financial income from challenging the premise of pesticide use.

Once a safe and suitable surface has been provided, which is usually more than achievable without the use of pesticides, and adequate investments made in to ensuring staff are appropriately skilled and trained for the work, salaries and benefits are commensurate with other industries, and adequate resources are provided to ensure surfaces can be maintained properly, then we will be much nearer being able to eliminate harmful pesticides from their use in an area that doesn’t really need them in many situations and the substantial money saved can be better invested in staff salaries and other turf maintenance resources: Changing attitudes and perceptions is the key to achieving this.