We are all concerned about the environment and what our generation is doing to protect it for future generations.  It is always necessary that nutrient management recommendations for turfgrass systems be based on strategies that protect our soil and water.  Nutrient management has some similarities to human diets.  Too much or too little food for a human has negative consequences.  Likewise, nutrient management recommendations that are so restrictive can negatively impact turfgrass density and health.  Restricting adaquate nutrient levels for turf is much like aggressive dieting for humans.  In many cases restricting food will create a weak plant that is not able to withstand environmental stress. If we under fertilize for too long of period, it will likely cause even greater environmental concerns due to factors such as higher soil erosion potential and less retention and filtration of sediments and/or chemicals.

Here are some selected points to consider regarding the proposed regulations: 

1)      The maintenance of a dense, healthy turf has both environmental and economical implications and must continue to be emphasized.

a.       There is less potential for soil erosion and such turf provides a highly effective filtration system for dust, nutrients, chemicals, and sediments.  This “functionality” of turf applies to all situations where soil stabilization is desired, but is of particular importance in the establishment and maintenance of turf for slopes and highway rights-of-way.

b.       A healthy, thick turf is desirable for both aesthetics and playability in terms of golf and sports turf management.  In a culture where so much emphasis is placed on sport for enjoyment, exercise, and recreation, it is important to maintain an actively growing turf that can withstand the rigors of managed turf use and deliver safe, desirable playing surfaces.

c.       Lawns are usually a major landscape component surrounding homes and businesses.  In addition to the functional uses of turf presented above, turf serves as a major source of heat and noise abatement, as well as provides beauty and economic value to the property.

2)      The diversity in Virginia’s grasses, climate, soils, and the end use of the turf is conducive to site-specific nutrient management planning rather than broad scale criteria that try to address all situations at once. 

a.       For instance, in the current recommendations specific N level recommendations for certain components of golf turf management (fairways and roughs, page 95, Section VI) are very restrictive and do not address management systems that distinguish between cool-season turfgrasses (ryegrasses, bluegrasses, fescues, or bentgrasses) from warm-season grasses (primarily Bermuda grass and Zoysia grass).   Annual N fertility levels of 1-3 lbs. N/1000 sq ft for fairways and 0-1 lb. N/1000 sq. ft. for roughs are extremely conservative and are inadequate to meet the nutritional and/or playability needs of grasses at many facilities.  In particular, it is inconceivable that golf turf fairways that are likely mowed a minimum of 2-5 times per week at 0.5 to 1 inch cutting heights could have more restrictions placed on their N use levels than those currently recommended for home lawn turf management in Virginia.  However, this is the case when you review the N levels recommended in the DCR-VCE-Chesapeake Bay Program informational tri-fold bulletin entitled “Tips on Keeping Your Lawn Green and the Chesapeake Bay Clean”.  Again, there needs to be a certain level of flexibility and site-specific recommendations in future nutrient management programs because of the inherent differences in nutritional requirements between (and within) cool and warm-season turfgrasses.

 There are many unbiased sources of information that address the nutrient needs of all types of turfgrass.  I would encourage those involved to look to organizations such as Rise

www.pestfacts.org and the various universities for more info.