Traditional turfgrass management programs rely heavily on the use of synthetic pesticides and fertilizers. In response to increased public scrutiny and legislation, organic and biological alternatives are becoming more accepted, but research indicates that these alternatives have not been widely adopted by either homeowners or the lawn care industry. Purdue University researchers reported on a field study that evaluated and compared the aesthetic and economic characteristics of four turfgrass fertility and pesticide programs. The reasons that homeowners and professionals do not adopt organic alternatives "primarily revolve around a combination of high aesthetic standards and a perceived lack of reliability or cost effectiveness associated with biologically based alternatives."
Researchers compared four turfgrass fertility and pesticide programs in an effort to provide a framework for lawn care professionals. Programs included a consumer program (CP), an integrated pest management program (IPMP), a natural organic program (NOP), and a no-input program (NIP). "Results of the experiments showed that all programs significantly improved visual appearance compared with the no-input program (NIP), and, although the integrated pest management program and consumer programs consistently had the highest ratings, the natural organic program produced lawns of similar quality on the majority of rating dates". "The no-input program also resulted in canopy greenness levels similar to or significantly greater than those provided by the IPMP and CP on most dates. Aside from the NIP, the lowest total maintenance costs were associated with the IPMP during both study years."
http://www.brightsurf.com/news/headlines/61740/Turfgrass_fertility_pesticide_programs_compared.html
No comments:
Post a Comment