The great chemical debate

The choice between generic and name brand pesticides

Brand name versus generic. It’s a decision people face every day – at the supermarket, at the pharmacy and at the hardware store. For some golf course superintendents, the choice of which chemical to use is simple. For others, the issue is more complicated.

Brand name supporters
Superintendents who favor brand name products say they aren’t the same as generic pesticides. Hundreds or thousands of molecules must be screened to identify one molecule that has potential value as a fungicide, herbicide, insecticide or plant growth regulator, according to manufacturers. Companies say they discover these active ingredients through large investments in research programs.

Although the original molecule becomes available when the patent expires, the prime manufacturer can protect the recipe for synthesizing and formulating the product as a trade secret.

Manufacturers of branded products maintain Environmental Protection Agency registrations. Additionally, they continually invest in the proper stewardship of their products and respond to market and customer needs with improved formulations and packaging.

Finally, manufacturers give back to the industry in the form of scholarships, speaker sponsorships and support for events such as the annual Golf Industry Show.

Jimmy Angelotti, superintendent of Dub’s Dread Golf Club in Kansas City, Kan., has never bought a generic chemical.

“I’m skeptical of generics,” he says. “I don’t buy generic pills from doctors. Dub’s Dread was established in 1964, and with old greens, I’m on a strict preventive maintenance program. I don’t wait to see what’s going to happen because by the time I see a disease, we’re in big trouble.

“Anthracnose is a huge problem on greens in this area,” he adds. “If that sets in, it takes over and we’re done. It will wipe out every blade of Poa annua on the greens. If I lost a few days of play because I used a generic chemical, I would be very upset. That’s how I look at it.”

Angelotti admits he doesn’t have a sales representative who handles generic products. However, he keeps an open mind.

“There are many factors to consider when purchasing chemicals, and cost is huge,” he says. “I spend a lot on chemicals because our greens need it. But if I can save money, I will. I can use those dollars somewhere else.”

Never looked back
Tom Harrison tried a generic fungicide 15 years ago and hasn’t looked back. The superintendent of Maple Bluff Country Club in Madison, Wis., uses four generic chemicals and will probably add two more when the patents of brand name products expire this year.

“The basic ingredients of generic products are the same as those of prime manufacturers,” he says. “I’ll try them, and in many cases, they work better; so what’s the difference? This year I’ll save $2,000 to $3,000 in my fungicide budget using generic products. That’s nothing to sneeze at. There’s money out there to be saved.”

Harrison refutes the notion that research used for generic products is inferior.

“Most of the chemicals used on golf courses were originally developed for the agriculture industry, so the money has already been spent for research,” he says. “The turf industry represents a small part of the revenue generated by these chemicals. We’re just the tail wagging the dog.”

Senseman, superintendent of Oswego Lake (Ore.) Country Club, expresses a similar view. He has been at the 18-hole private course for 10 years and was a USGA agronomist in the Northeast for two years.

“I take generic medicine, and if I put that in my body, I can put generic chemicals on a golf course,” Senseman says. “I don’t go out of my way to look for generics, but sometimes there aren’t any differences. The active ingredient is the same, and the control is the same. I use them and save money, so I don’t see why I shouldn’t keep using generics. I haven’t noticed any failures or a difference in efficacy.”

Senseman contends large manufacturers wouldn’t invest a lot in the golf industry unless there was money to be made.

“We had two fungicides from the same manufacturer with different names that did the same thing,” he says. “We paid an arm and a leg for the chemical designated for turf, while the product used in the agriculture industry was half the cost with twice the active ingredient. Unfortunately, we couldn’t buy it for our course.”

Senseman has seen the use of generics increase during the last two years.

“One of our local distributors introduced generics because he couldn’t get package deals from large manufacturers,” he says. “We have to buy some brand name products in bulk to get a good price. For example, a brand name fungicide costs $300 a gallon, and $225 in a link-pack deal. The comparable generic product is $225 for one gallon. I don’t have to have 10 gallons sitting around.

Senseman says it’s business, plain and simple.

“I will still buy brand name products, especially if I need something in a hurry, and generics aren’t available,” he says. “However, I owe it to my employer to save money where I can. A dollar or two per pound is insignificant, but we’re seeing savings of $50 to $100 a pound for some products. That’s big money. It can add up to two or three additional applications a year.”

On the fence
John Alexander, superintendent of Waverley Country Club, Portland, Ore., is on the fence when it comes to brand names and generics.

“I understand what the big companies do for the industry, and I don’t want to totally move to generics, but I have no problem using them,” he says. “I save money with generic products, and in some instances, we do a better job because we can cover more area. I feel I should get the most bang for my buck.”

Chemical formulation is important to Alexander.

“Once in a while we’ll get a product with a water soluble bag that doesn’t disperse well and clogs spray nozzles,” he says. “Dry flowables aren’t that dusty. I can pour them into my tanks without dust, and they’re easy to use. That makes a big difference to me. Some of the generics are awesome when it comes to that. Daconil Ultrex is a great fungicide, but Concorde DF is very similar. It mixes beautifully and is very clean. I’m not exposed to the chemical. The generics have done a great job with that. I haven’t seen any control issues with the generic fungicides I’ve used. For me, they work every bit as good as brand names.”

Recently, Alexander used a generic weed killer and says the savings were huge.

“I paid $50 a gallon for the generic, as opposed to $110 a gallon for the brand name product,” he says. “Generics have pushed the big companies to sharpen their pencils.”

At Chalet Hills Golf Course in Cary, Ill., superintendent Jeff Leonard’s decision to use generic chemicals is made easier because they work well for him.

“I use two generic fungicides to treat dollar spot,” he says. “They are very good, proven chemicals and are less expensive. That makes the decision a little easier for me. With generics, in most cases, the percentage of active ingredient is the same or higher. As a result, we don’t have to buy as much or store as much.”

Two major brand name products, Primo and Merit, are coming off patent this year, according to Leonard.

“Primo will have a big impact because we use a lot of it here,” he says. “The price has got to drop, and that will be great for us.”

Looking for answers
Each superintendent uses a variety of sources to find the chemical that’s right for his course. Chalet Hills is a member of the Chicago District Golf Association.

“The association has a short course for research, and we benefit from the information they gather,” Leonard says. “Together with the University of Illinois, they also sponsor an interactive turf Web site. It tells us what diseases we should be looking for, and is a very useful tool. I also use a consultant, so we’re not just spraying without knowing what’s working. Chemical sales representatives are good resources, too, because they see a lot of courses. They know what’s going on in the area.”

Harrison has been superintendent at Maple Bluff for 36 years and conducts his own research when buying chemicals. Early in the year, he sets up his program for the season and contacts four suppliers to buy about two-thirds of the chemicals he will need.

“Price is important, but I also need suppliers who will give me good service,” he says. “I don’t want to scramble if I need something right away.”

Alexander values the opinions of other superintendents.

“We learn so much trading information,” he says.

The bottom line
Regardless of their position on brand name and generic products, superintendents agree budget concerns drive many purchasing decisions. Last year, Angelotti’s chemical budget was $32,000, which included $15,000 spent on greens.

“My budget isn’t very large, and I can’t afford to make mistakes buying chemicals,” he says. “If a product is inferior, it will break down more quickly, and if it rains, it doesn’t hold as well. Those are the factors I look at. And cost is huge. I can’t afford to put down another application.”

Leonard’s chemical budget is tight, too.

“I’m being squeezed like everyone else,” he says. “Play declined last year, and I had to cut out a few things. In the past, we fertilized the rough twice a year. This year, we cut out the spring application. That accounts for a lot of money.”

Senseman says there are several factors beyond his control, such as wages and the cost of fertilizer, fuel and utilities.

“When the budget isn’t stretching, I have to look at line items I can control,” he says. “I feel a fiscal responsibility to do the best I can with the budget I have. I check prices and use competitive bidding. Sometimes the best product costs more, and I have to go with what’s right. But when there are simple alternatives, such as generics, I’ll take advantage of those savings.” GCN

David Wolff is a freelance writer based in Watertown, Wis. He can be reached at dgwolff@charter.net.