Thursday, 30 November 2017

Herd Immunity and Disease Spread


This tweet started an interesting discussion on twitter today. It centered around herd immunity and turfgrass disease trials and knock out control plots. For those of you who don't know what herd immunity is check out the following tweet.




So essentially Pat might have a clean check plot because all the turf surrounding the plot is treated for disease and this prevents the spread of disease onto the check plot. The discussion then goes on to talk about how there might be better value to have fewer large plots vs many smaller plots to try and account for this apparent phenomenon.

This first occurred to me way back when I first started blogging and noticed how disease was spread by mowers. It's sort of the opposite of herd immunity but goes along with the same idea. If we have a plot treatment that is surrounded by diseased turf, it might not matter how effective the treatment is if it is constantly being hit with artificially high amounts of disease.

I was attending a conference seminar from Thom Nikolai about rolling and much to my surprise he shared some of my observations about moss and traffic in his presentation. He also shared his now well known observations on how rolling could reduce dollar spot incidence.


In his study (like most disease studies) the plots of rolled, rolled twice, and not rolled were all directly adjacent to each other. I wondered how the plots were mowed so after the talk I approached him and asked him. He informed me that the plots were mowed in multiple directions and would go from one plot to another. Hmmmm.

I called him an asshole for spreading disease in his study so he bought me a beer.
I wondered if that he would have had even more significant findings if mowing had been more carefully done to prevent spreading of disease from one plot to another.

I wonder the same thing about a lot of disease control studies. Is the intense inoculum on the control plots being spread to the adjacent plots making their results seem less significant. If you applied the plot to an entire green and didn't have that intense disease pressure directly beside the plot would it be so bad?

I think this is why a lot of turf managers claim great success with certain practices but when scientist go to test it out it proves to be less effective than previously claimed. Generally superintendents apply their practices to the entire course or putting green which will eliminate the super bad control plot areas that are the source of the bad disease.

This happened with me when I first made my observations on rolling and fusarium. Initially there was no significant difference in the findings from Oregon State but eventually their findings showed a minor improvement with rolled plots vs unrolled plots. My small trial had a very significant difference.



In some trials this isn't a problem because the plants are protected by products that work independently from the plant to fight disease. In other circumstances the way we control disease is less independent and requires the host plant to do the work or certain cultural practices to do the control. Basically we are preventing the infection by maintaining a healthy plant or desirable growing conditions but this doesn't mean that if the disease is spread all over with mowers that the disease won't infect the plant.

This summer I again had issues with dollar spot on a few greens. It became apparent after months of no fungicide treatment (something I have always done to try and learn about the disease) that the dollar spot was spreading from my collars onto the green edges and then throughout the putting green. My original plan was to give the greens enough nitrogen to outgrow the disease.

I hypothesized that we probably didn't need as much as was shown in the above tweet because again, we didn't have disease spreading from adjacent control plots.

I was wrong. I had an uncontrolled plot on all my greens, the collars that I wasn't managing the disease on because it never really resulted in full on dead grass. This was a big mistake.

Dollar spot spread from collar to green
The above picture shows how the disease was spreading from the collar onto the green. The collar wasn't sprayed with my weekly nitrogen applications because it was just out of the width of my booms and I thought it was no big deal. I have often thought of the gps sprayers as overkill but here is a great example of how they could benefit my simple operation. Of course, there are also much simpler solutions to this issue.

So the collars didn't get enough nitrogen to keep the dollar spot at bay. I also wasn't collecting clippings on my tees collars and approaches which were all cut with the same mower. So the cutting units would be covered in infected clippings which would fall off all over the place. As we were cutting the green collars the infected clippings that we were mowing would blow into the air and onto the greens where they would infect the greens. From there it would be spread by my greens mower to result in disease that was worse than what I had deemed as acceptable.

For the most part if you would have had 4'x4' plots on these bad greens you would find that my higher nitrogen and and rolling regime was working to control dollar spot. But overall, there was just too much disease.
Guess where my sprayer boom reaches?

While my attempt to manage dollar spot without fungicides last summer failed I feel that I was very close to success and this observation might help me find success next year.

What I need to do differently next year is treat my collars the same as my greens. I need to give them the same fertilizer treatments and collect the clippings to prevent disease spread.

So while it's not the same as herd immunity it is a similar story. Before we had miracle pesticides and immunizations for disease, we would isolate and try and prevent the spread of disease. If we need to manage turf disease without the use of traditional pesticides I think we need to take the same approach and try and prevent disease across the entire managed turf area and treat the individual cases to prevent them from spreading further to otherwise healthy plants.

While a preventative fungicide application can prevent all of this from happening, if you have restrictions to their use, or just want to save some money this might be useful to know about.


Disease spread.....again








Friday, 24 November 2017

The evolution of precision fertilizer application.


I recently returned from an amazing trip to Ireland and Iceland. There's nothing that teaches me more about greenkeeping than going to see other greenkeepers and learn how they grow grass. This trip was no exception and in my discussions with other seriously deep thinking greenkeepers it got me thinking about how the way I fertilize my grass has changed over the years and helped me understand that basically what I have been doing is trying to reduce the amount of guesswork and luck and resources required to grow good grass.

For the most part my experience with fertilizing grass has gone like this;
  1. Guess at how much fertilizer to apply based on generalized guidelines,
  2. Adjust rates based on observations
  3. Guess again....
For the most part we are guessing because fertilizing grass is extremely difficult compared to other crops. Unlike agriculture, we do not want maximum yield. We want optimum yield which means growing the grass just enough to keep up with wear and tear and not too much to reduce mowing requirements. This is something that first became clear to me when I read Micah Wood's incredible book A Short Grammar of Greenkeeping

The following picture shows general recommendations for different turf areas from my college fertilizer class. 


1st Method: Generalized monthly/annual rates

The rates roughly follow the classic growth characteristic of cool season turf. You know the one. Growth spikes in the Spring and Fall with dips in growth in the Summer and Winter. I would set annual rates based off of research that would show various annual nitrogen rates and how they impacted diseases such as fusarium.

I didn't know it at the time, but this method of generalized fertilization caused all sorts of issues. Excess disease, thatch production, fuel consumption, mowing requirements, clipping management, labor needs the list goes on and on. But without really looking inward at what I was doing and why I was doing it this method of fertilizing grass seemed like a good way to go. After all, everyone core aerates right?

It's kind of funny looking back but one of the most important qualities of mower selection for me used to be clipping dispersal. We used to have huge issues with excessive clippings when we fertilized this way.

Fertilizing this way wasn't all bad. For the most part I was still able to maintain good quality playing surfaces. The grass was green and there were few bare spots.

I think this is also the way most turf managers still fertilize their grass. It isn't bad and I would bet that some of the best managers out there can fertilize with way with extreme precision for their respective courses. I'm not that good though so I need more help.

As I get older and learn more about what I'm actually trying to do as a turfgrass manager I have found that most of our issues at turf managers come from generalizations. We grow grass outdoors and our plants are influenced significantly by the environment that they grow in so any broad recommendation has no place in our industry in my opinion. The trouble is is that making recommendations for each individual climate would be cost prohibitive so we are stuck with generalizations to help us make our decisions.

2nd Method: Growth Potential and MLSN

This method of determining fertilizer rates was a game changer to me. It showed nitrogen rates that were specific to my climate and this made sense to me. We didn't get super hot weather that limited the growth of our poa (at the time) greens in the summer and for the most part the grass grew very little if at all in the winter.

The MLSN also helped me only apply what was needed and helped me use up the nutrients that were already in my soils. I often wondered about the impacts of excessive nutrients and MLSN offered me a way to try and minimize any excessive nutrients in my soils.
Growth Potential was a game changer for me

This growth predicting formula helped me more accurately time my nitrogen applications and made a big impact on my operation.

Aside from allowing me to cut my nitrogen rates in half without compromising turf quality, I have seen reductions in turf diseases, thatch, required mowing, fuel use and labor. It might seem obvious but the rate at which your grass grows has a huge impacts on how expensive it is to maintain. I also started to noticed more bentgrass on my greens and I wonder if  improved nitrogen timing removed the advantage from the poa. I was reminded of the differing nitrogen requirements between poa and bentgrass during a presentation in Ireland by Agnar Kvalbein from STERF about precision fertilisation. Poa likes more nitrogen than bentgrass so applying more nitrogen will result in more growth of the poa than bentgrass thus giving poa the advantage. Applying significant amounts of nitrogen in the Spring and Fall like I used to with the 1st method described in this post definitely gave the advantage to poa.
Accumulative nitrogen rates on greens over the years.
Data compiled and animated by Micah Woods

The trouble with this though, is that it is still essentially a generalization and doesn't take into account the actual growth conditions that are occurring because again, there are so many variables that go into grass growth.

3rd Method: Growth Potential Adjusted Observations

I then started adjusting rates based on observations. If I noticed that the weather coming up was conducive to producing a growth surge I would hold off on the recommended nitrogen rates. This offered some improvement but for the most part it was still relying too much on my judgement and honestly there's no way I can guess how much nitrogen is needed without making measurements of some kind.

I was measuring clipping yield at the time but it wasn't in a meaningful enough way. Sure I could adjust my fertilizer rates to try and keep growth controlled but it just wasn't accurate enough for my needs.

How accurate are my needs? I want to maximize the conditions of my course and maximize the profit. To do this I need to identify areas where we are guessing or where we can improve the precision of our actions. With a booming economy we can afford to guess. When things get tight, we need to stop guessing. When the economy for golf improves, those how guess less, will make more money. I don't need to tell you that if you don't make money, you won't be growing grass for very long....

So many of our cultural practices are required to manage the result of the guesswork that for the most part, we are forced to live with but I wonder if we can reduce the guesswork to the lowest level possible, if we can reduce the need for remedial cultural practices?
Can we reliably eliminate the need for pulling a core?
As of today I am still required to do remedial practices such as aerification and topdressing to dilute and remove excessive organic matter. Why is there excessive organic matter? If we guess at fertilizing we get excessive organic matter if we want to produce grass that grows fast enough to tolerate the wear and tear of golfer traffic and maintenance. If we don't apply enough fertilizer, we get very little if any organic matter production in the soil but the turf quality also suffers. So in theory, we should be able to find the spot where we are neither producing excessive organic matter or not producing enough organic matter. So how can we reduce the need for guessing on how much nitrogen to apply?

4th Method: Matching Nitrogen Applied to Nitrogen Removed

It took me embarrassingly long to finally be persuaded to measure clipping yield on individual putting greens using a unit of measurement that had meaning. All of a sudden I had a way to calculate how much nitrogen I was removing from my greens thanks to the teachings of Micah Woods. When I compared this to how much nitrogen I applied I could see if there was any difference.

To me this is so new that I have no clue how it will all work out or be worthwhile but I have heard anecdotal evidence that getting away with no core aerification is possible I just hadn't figured out how to do it for myself yet. I do think that what I am about to describe might be the closest yet that I have got to reducing the guesswork of fertilizing my grass.

So how does this all work?

If you multiply the total Liters of clippings/100m^2 by 0.63 for bentgrass you get the approximate dry mass of the clippings in g/m^2. From this we can calculate the approximate amount of nitrogen removed from the system because 4% of the mass of dried turf clippings is nitrogen.

So I compared how much nitrogen I had removed through clipping harvest to how much nitrogen I applied to each green.



If you look at the numbers in blue you will notice that for the most part they are pretty consistent. This is the amount of nitrogen removed per square meter from my greens since Jun 16 when I started measuring clipping volume from each specific green.

If you then look at the row directly beneath that you will notice that the amount of fertilizer applied varies greatly. This row is the amount of fertilizer applied. As soon as I was aware of the differences in growth rates on my greens I wanted to take action and I did by applying different fertilizer rates to each specific green. How I did that is a topic for a blog post on it's own but it really isn't that difficult. Essentially I am comparing the theoretical growth potential N requirements to actual harvest and splitting the difference as long as it results in desirable growth rates for my disease and playability management needs. Simple eh? haha.

A look at my highly experimental way of determining how my N to apply. It takes actual yield, optimal yield, and differences between each green into account to give fertilizer rate recommendations for each individual green. So far it seems to be working.
The reason I had such variable growth rates this summer was that I was pushing growth of my 5 winter damaged greens until the beginning of June when recovery was complete.
Once recovery was complete I had greens that were growing much faster than the greens that weren't damaged but it was hard to tell without measuring.
The bottom row of the table shows the difference between nitrogen applied vs nitrogen removed on each green. A negative number means that I am using nitrogen already contained in the soil and a positive number means that I am adding additional nitrogen to the soil that isn't being harvested through clippings.

You might also notice that greens 2,3,4,5, and 7 all received very little nitrogen during this time but also had some of the highest growth rates. This is because of the excess nitrogen applied during the spring. It might also be because of the excess mineralization of nitrogen from organic matter from all the poa that died the previous winter. Either way, I was aware of the excess growth and was able to adapt my practices to achieve consistent playing conditions and maybe use up some of that excess soil N no matter where it came from.

What I find especially interesting is that on greens that weren't damage, the amount of nitrogen harvested is almost exactly the same as the amount of nitrogen applied.

With the exception of my 8th and upper practice green the undamaged greens all had a difference less than +/- 0.15g/m^2.

As for the 8th and upper practice greens I think there is something else going on as I couldn't get them to grow as fast as I would like. They are both the newest greens on the course and could suffer from too low organic matter. They are also both almost purely bentgrass where my other greens all have some poa still left on them.

My lower practice green had high growth despite low N inputs. Maybe high soil OM from unrelated reasons as it wasn't damaged last winter. It is my shadiest green and they do say that shady grass needs less nitrogen so who knows?

Being aware of huge jumps in growth caused my n release from soil (spikes in blue line) OM might help us reduce excessive fertilizer applications.
Back to precision fertilizer.

The very similar numbers that I got from nitrogen applied vs nitrogen harvested on my undamaged greens tells me that it's possible to find a balance that might be able to allow me to eliminate the need for organic matter management. Of course I will need to confirm this with OM tests next spring.

The similar growth rates on greens that had excess spring fertilizer and OM also tells me that I can get consistent growth despite no added fertilizer if we are aware of the growth differences and add fertilizer accordingly.

In the past few years I have consistently applied much more fertilizer than I harvested but I also wasn't measuring and applying fertilizer based off of growth with this precisions.

In 2016 I harvested 5.6g N/m^2 but applied 12.3g N/m^2. So either I was seeing a lot of nitrogen losses, had bad measurement (I was only measuring clippings from 2 greens instead of all of them) or was building excess organic matter in the soil because I wasn't taking organic matter mineralization of nitrogen into account like I was this year.

I am excited about trying out some new things next year to see how to best implement the strategy of precision fertilizer application and will share what I learn over the next year or two. Now let's hope with winter is kind to my grass and I can focus on optimizing things instead of recovering things!










Friday, 4 August 2017

Don't knock it till you try it (or don't try it). Afternoon watering.

Some might call this overwatered, but the VMC is right where we want it and the greens are nice and firm. Watered by hand each morning during the heat.

This week I quoted a tweet by the USGA and started a shit storm on twitter.


I love it when people get riled up about grass!

The reasons I asked the question "is there a good reasons why sprinklers are running during your round" was that for the longest time I thought I needed to water in the afternoon to cool down the grass or to keep it alive to live another day.

It turns out that this wasn't the case for me but it was taught in school that afternoon watering was an essential practice to provide good golf course playing surfaces.

The article I posted was actually really good and took a good balanced approach at promoting what we do is not necessarily bad and outlining the very good reasons why you might see sprinklers running during the day on a golf course. Hell even I have to do it sometimes when things break!

It has been proven again and again that afternoon watering does little to cool the plant so if you are doing it, it is to replenish water in the soil to avoid some pretty specific issues that some courses might face. Thankfully, my course isn't one where we need to water during the day unless a pipe breaks overnight.
It was pointed out to me over and over and over and over again that just because I don't need to water during the day that others might not have that luxury. I totally get that, it's pretty obvious. What is true on my first green isn't even true on my second! Everything is highly location dependant in our industry. There is nothing universal in our industry. What concerns me is that I bet a lot of people who currently water during the day, could probably get by without it.

For the longest time I thought it was needed on my course and I would water every afternoon on a hot day. That was back before I really had any idea of what I was doing. That last sentence is kind of paradoxical as the more I learn, the less I feel I know. Hmmmm

Then it was pointed out to me that maybe daytime watering wasn't necessary.

So what did I do?

I immediately sent Micah an angry email telling him how wrong he was.

Actually, no that is not what I did.

I tried it out to see for myself. And guess what, he was right (as usual). It turns out that on my property and in my climate with my type of grass (almost 100% poa at the time) I didn't need to water at all during the day. If we had enough water in the soil we didn't need to add more no matter what time of the day it was. Boy did this save me a lot of time.

It also reduced the amount of disease on my greens (and need for corrective fungicides). There's nothing better than warm and constantly wet for turf disease production from what I've seen. It puzzles me when we work so hard to remove the dew in the mornings in an attempt to dry things out and then go and purposely make the grass wet again. Either way I kind of think the whole drying grass out practice isn't worth it either so who knows?

Don't knock it until you don't try it.

I try to take this approach to everything. I've tried preventative fungicide applications, I've tried designer fertilizer programs, I've tried deep and infrequent watering (I can't make it work on my soils with my irrigation system), I've tried every stupid practice and gimmick there is to try. Hell I even tried compost tea once 😄 I will try anything once and will make observations and decide if it's right for my situation.

What I caution those who were so against my questioning of daytime watering is to know if they tried not watering in the day or not. Don't try it for me. Try it (and anything you read about) for you and see if you can adapt it to your specific circumstances to make improvements.

Smoke from wildfires dampen the record breaking high temperatures to only 105F.
I'm sure those who were adamantly against no water in the day had tried it for themselves. It's a pretty easy thing to test afterall. Simply don't do it for a day and if the grass suffers more than usual, go back to the way your were doing it before. If nothing bad happens, try it again, and continue this process until one day, 5 years later you haven't watered in the afternoon even once despite 2 record heatwaves and droughts.

I know that there are plenty of circumstances that require daytime watering as was outlined in the USGA article. Please don't hate me for suggesting that it might not be needed, because guess what? It might not be for everyone....maybe even you 😊



There I go again....Look at what I can do with all the time I save not irrigating during the day!

Wednesday, 19 July 2017

Can I use clipping yield to prevent disease this September?

Managing turfgrass disease with the goal of reducing or eliminating pesticide use takes a lot of planning, careful observations and fine tuning. While we are currently in the middle of the summer turf disease cycle, I am already planning ahead for the most difficult time of year that I face when managing turf disease, September.

September has always been a challenging time of year for me as we transition from managing for dollar spot to managing for fusarium patch. These disease are seemingly polar opposites when it comes to IPM strategies. High nitrogen reduces the impact of dollar spot and low nitrogen reduces the impact of fusarium patch. During the transition I am forced to pick a side and often lose the battle on both fronts. So far in my career, September is the only month that I have not been able to get through without the need for a corrective fungicide application for either dollar spot or fusarium patch.

Last month I made an interesting observation about clipping yield and fusarium patch. Basically the greens with the highest clipping yield had the most disease. What was even more surprising to me was that my historically bad green for disease was clean of disease as it had a very low clipping yield. Hmmmm

It is well documented that different rates of nitrogen can have impacts on these diseases but if it was this easy, we wouldn't need fungicides.

My observations last month have got me thinking about disease management and I think clipping yield might be the missing link for me because it is the sum of all things that influence plant growth. It paints a very clear picture of what is happening to your turf.

I have always treated all my greens the same when it comes to fertilizer. If one green gets some fertilizer, they all get it. This was until I started measuring clipping yield on each green individually. This understanding of how each green was growing compared to the other greens allowed me to make further educated observations that I wouldn't have been able to otherwise. This combined with the wildly varying fertilizer rates on my dead greens this spring has allowed me to compare the differences in growth rates to disease activity on my course. It's like a huge science experiment.

As you can see from the tweet above, there is a sharp cutoff for disease pressure for different rates of nitrogen applications for dollar spot. I have a feeling there is a similar cutoff for fusarium too. Is it the nitrogen, or the resulting growth rate from nitrogen application that is making the difference?

On my greens that have received relatively high amounts of fertilizer there is no dollar spot or anthracnose, but they had a lot of fusarium last month. On the greens that have received regular low rates of fertilizer, there has been no fusarium since last November but slight incidences of both dollar spot and anthracnose.

Before using the growth potential formula to predict fertilizer rates I was fertilizing all wrong for my climate. Once I started using GP I instantly noticed an improvement in the disease pressure on my course.

During the challenging month of September I am faced with both disease simultaneously but here's the thing, they don't happen on the same greens. Some greens get fusarium, and some get dollar spot. Why?

While I don't have individual green clipping yield data going back more than 1 month I do have data going back years. It seems to me that the variation in growth rates from one green to another are the cause of the varying disease pressure that I observe. Different greens were rebuilt at different times, have less sun, differing drainage characteristics etc and these all have impacts on how the grass grows and how soil microorganisms function and mineralize the soil organic matter.

Using the numbers I measured last month and in previous years in relation to disease pressure I could possibly assign target yields for each disease. Of course I don't expect it to be as simple as this but if I can understand the relationship between yield and disease pressure maybe I can combine this with all the other things I have been trying to be even more successful.

For fusarium the yield that seems to correlate with increased disease pressure is about 1.5L/100m^2 per day. Anything over that and fusarium disease pressure is essentially out of control when temperatures are mild.

Looking back on previous years' overall growth data it correlates almost perfectly with need for a fungicide. When growth rates go over 3L/100m^2 during periods the spring and fall, I require a fungicide. All the other things I do to culturally control fusarium aren't enough when growth rates are this high combined with mild temperatures.

Last year I made it through the Month of May without a fungicide for the first time ever. Growth rates never went over 1.5L/100m^2/day in May 2016. This year, only those greens that had a growth rate over 1.5L/100m^2/day in May needed a fungicide.

Take a look at the growth rates in September 2016.


DateClipping yield L/100m^2
2016-08-201.125
2016-08-211.5
2016-08-222
2016-08-240.875
2016-08-261.75
2016-08-282
2016-08-301.75
2016-09-015
2016-09-033.5
2016-09-042
2016-09-061.5
2016-09-081.25
2016-09-091
2016-09-111
2016-09-130.5
2016-09-150.5

Last September I needed a fungicide for fusarium on September 4th. This observation combined with my recent observation made on individual greens leads me to suspect that I need to aim for a clipping yield below 1.5L/100m^2/day by the end of August. It will be interesting to monitor disease and compare it with yields in the next few months.

Of course this assumes that I have that much control over growth rates and that my numbers are correct and that growth rate has an impact on fusarium patch disease severity. It also doesn't account for the different susceptibilities that poa has to disease vs bentgrass. Let's assume that all these figures are for poa.

So what about dollar spot? My numbers suggest that greens that have a yield greater than 2L/100m^2/day have less dollar spot.

This brings me back to my plan of attack for this September. Recently I have been varying rates of fertilizer on each green to try and achieve a more uniform growth rate across all my greens. The results have been quite successful. Despite the varying growth rates the Coefficient of Variation (Cv) has been dropping which signifies more consistent yields from one green to another.





So now that I am measuring individual yield and fertilizing based on these yields, I hope that I will have more success managing both of these diseases in September. I will aim to keep yields above 2L until mid-August when I will transition to lower yields as the month closes.

I think that if this works I will need to work towards a better understanding on all the things that influence growth rates and how I can manipulate them with the relatively few tools available. Also note that I don't think growth regulators will have a positive impact. If you use PGRs I hypothesize that the growth rates will be relative to one another but who knows.

The chart below illustrates how I have manipulated the growth rates of the greens that received a lot of fertilizer this spring to speed recovery from winter damage. By only fertilizing the greens that have low clipping yields I have been able to make the clipping yield more consistent across all my greens.

I think there is still a lot to learn but this gives me something to try and probably fail at which is what keeps me going. Here goes nothing!