News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


TEPaul

Re: Bacterial Wilt?
« Reply #25 on: August 04, 2010, 08:17:53 AM »
Brad:

I think your Reply #23 is most interesting and deserves its own thread. I feel you are pretty much our resident historian on early American agronomy as well as early maintenance and construction equipment. The new thread is called "The History of the USDA's Development of early American Bent Grass."

Ian Larson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Bacterial Wilt?
« Reply #26 on: August 04, 2010, 10:33:22 AM »
I don't think height of cut has anything to do with greens being more susceptible to it because they are mowed lower. The perfect disease trifecta is presence of pathogen, moisture and the correct environmental conditions. Height of cut is not included in that. Although one exception is with anthracnose. A grass plant could be innoculated with bacterial wilt, wet wilt or pythium if it were at 6". It's just the perfect storm with the disease triangle and if a certain grassplant is susceptible to whatever pathogen is lurking around.


Ian,

firstly a plant can't be innoculated with wet wilt....

Secondly you're correct that height of cut is not specifically spelled out as part of the disease triangle, but isn't it an envirnomantal factor? and you admit yourself it is a factor in anthracnose however it is a factor in all diseases; Maybe hoc is not a direct cause but a plant at 6" (to use your example) is going to be way more capable of fighting/warding off a disease than one at .1" or less.




You're right it can't get innoculated with wet wilt it just gets waterlogged and choked off. And no, height of cut is by no means an environmental factor. HOC is a man made factor. Environmental obviously refers to the surrounding environmental conditions such as humidity, temp and sunlight. That's not to say that man can't gain some control over over environmental factors through fans, subairs and growing lights.

One of my biggest points to support why I believe HOC has not much to do with disease in general is because during a grow-in while HOC is always higher during establishment, there is never a shortage of disease. Greens being cut at 1/2" during establishment have more tha enough leaf tissue and shoots. Which according to you guys is the main reason why HOC matters, but they still get attacked by disease just as they do when they are at 1/8". So going back to my anology, what is it exactly about a 6" plant being more immune to disease than a 1" plant? If a 1/2" inch plant isn't any more immune to disease than a 1/8" plant?

Even in college when doing research on different plugs grown at different heights. When innoculated by a pathogen the longer plants had no problem whatsoever being innoculated.

My point with anthracnose is that it's a disease that has gone outside of the triangle with stress being it's major factor. And HOC is a direct reason for stress.

Bentgrass in the summertime is going on all cylinders with it's plant synthesis. But it's not, however, going on all cylinders in carbohydrate production and storage. The time for carb storage is in the fall, winter and spring when temps are where bentgrass thrive. So this season in the northeast with extraordinary conditions, supers better have been on their game starting last fall with their programs leading up to this summer. Because as soon as this summer arrived and temps and rains went nuts, all they can do is sit back and pray and supplement the ingredients in a spray that promotes more carb production, photosynthesis and root growth. Which to me is not only a good fert program but also products that deliver simple sugars, auxins, cytokinins, gyberillyns and primo. Some supers don't believe in that stuff and call it snake oil or sunshine in a bottle. That's naiveté to me.
 
I'm close friends with several guys in the northeast who dealt with these conditions and they are getting through just fine. There are just as many guys who are getting through the summer excellently while a guy literally across the street is not. And the difference is in the growing medium (sand or soil) and the programs the super has been implementing in the months leading up to this. I think it's crap to say or think all supers can do no wrong. And the ones who have gotten through successfully have just gotten lucky. It's bullshit and flatout insulting. Give credit where credit is due.

Alan FitzGerald CGCS MG

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Bacterial Wilt?
« Reply #27 on: August 04, 2010, 07:36:14 PM »
Ian

I guess I should reword my statement that hoc is a factor in all diseases to it can be a factor in making a plant more susceptible to disease from the stress added by a low hoc (that's what I get for posting when I'm not fully awake ::))

The definition of environmental is "the circumstances, objects, or conditions by which one is surrounded" or more for our terms "the complex of physical, chemical, and biotic factors (as climate, soil, and living things) that act upon an organism or an ecological community and ultimately determine its form and survival" Ok so we're talking semantics here but hoc is a physical stress factor acting on the plant hence making it part of the disease triangle and, hence as you said, a factor in causing anthracnose.

What I love about being a Superintendent is everyone has their own views and ways of looking at things and you learn from those views either if you think they're right or not. So just to rebut your matter of fact statement that during a grow-in there is lots of disease even though there is plenty of tissue is not necessarily correct. During my grow-in here I had no disease issues whatsoever and I wasn't spraying preventatively either. Remember during a grow-in most are pumping fertilizer and water which greatly encourages disease manifestation so hoc is really a non-issue in this situation, but the plant can fight it off better and since the topic that brought all this up is bacterial wilt I've never heard of it affecting turf in a grow-in situation. When you get down to lower hoc particularly below .125" and during the summer the plant as little reserves left (as you rightly pointed out) which reduces it’s ability to fight off disease, bacterial wilt etc. I’m not saying that lower hoc is a cause of disease just that it makes the plant more susceptible and it has a harder time fighting it/recovering from it.

Quote
I think it's crap to say or think all supers can do no wrong. And the ones who have gotten through successfully have just gotten lucky. It's bullshit and flatout insulting. Give credit where credit is due.

I’ve no idea where this comes from, but I really hope this wasn’t directed at me, as I’ve made no such comment. Having dealt with all this summer has brought, I feel bad for any super that has had issues, whether it was their own doing or not (and in a lot of cases it’ s not), but it’s unfair to make a comment like that not having been here dealing with it.
« Last Edit: August 04, 2010, 07:39:26 PM by Alan FitzGerald »
Golf construction & maintenance are like creating a masterpiece; Da Vinci didn't paint the Mona Lisa's eyes first..... You start with the backdrop, layer on the detail and fine tune the finished product into a masterpiece

Ian Larson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Bacterial Wilt?
« Reply #28 on: August 04, 2010, 08:59:09 PM »
Let me throw this out there...

If in the summertime bentgrass (or poa) are not producing carbohydrates in extreme heat....and definetely not at a rate that it can sustain itself. What is the point of raising the height of cut? The reason behind raising the height of cut is to increase carbohydrate production right? Which is due to increased shoots. So in extreme heat in the summertime I don't see the point in raising the height of cut if the plant is not producing carbohydrates no matter what the height is or if it has 2 more shoots per node.

The reason for all this decline in the northeast during some extreme weather is because in such high temperatures the plant shuts down. Root development ceases, then the shoot development slows down to a turtles pace. Respiration is off the charts just obliterating the photosynthesis and at the same time completely wiping out the carbohydrate reserves that were built up from the previous fall. Cytokinins are also used up or can't do their job which is to be the main line of communication between the shoots and the roots.

How many times do we hear supers talking about "snake oils" and "sunshine in a bottle"? Well, those products are usually just some form of carbon, seaweed and maybe a little fert. The use of seaweed dates back to golfs beginnings in the UK. It's there to deliver proportions of cytokinins, auxins and gyberillins. I don't call that snake oil. Those are naturally occurring hormones that the plant NEEDS. Especially when plant metabolism is completely shut down during extreme heat. Studies have shown the evidence of the results from putting down cytokinins in the soil during periods of stress. Some supers don't even believe in soil sprays let alone the junk they call "snake oils".

When greens go south in such extreme weather, that means their bucket that has been filling up since the fall has been completely used up and is on life support with weekly spoonfeeding. And during that time you're kidding yourself if you think any new root growth will occur, or that raising the height of cut will solve anything. Extreme heat, and waterlogged greens are going to get worse before they get better when the food bucket is empty. It only gets better when they can dry out and have nightly lows that they thrive on so root production can start up again and the plant in general comes back to life metabolizing like it should.

Long story short....high respiration, low photosynthesis, wet soil greens that keep rootzones hotter and carbohydrate use that exceeds carbohydrate production equals no point in raising the height of cut. Dry greens with cooler rootzones and cooler night temps is the answer. The only chance I would throw in the cut to disease susceptibility is when the cut is crap due to dull blades.

My last statement doesn't refer to anybody in particular and actually means the opposite of what you are incinuating of my statement. I feel like the guys who got through this summer in great shape should get some credit. To say to those guys that they just "got lucky" is a slap in the face and completely takes away any effort they put in to making sure they did. I sure as hell feel bad for supers who have busted their ass through the summer but I'm not going to take anything away from the guys who got through it just fine.

Ian Larson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Bacterial Wilt?
« Reply #29 on: August 04, 2010, 09:09:08 PM »
I'll also add that as much flack USGA, any kind of modified sand green, SubAirs or fans get on here....those are the only tools that can save the greens in this situation. If you have soil greens that stay wet, say your prayers until 65 degree nights come back in the fall.

Bradley Anderson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Bacterial Wilt?
« Reply #30 on: August 05, 2010, 04:49:20 AM »
Quote
I think it's crap to say or think all supers can do no wrong. And the ones who have gotten through successfully have just gotten lucky. It's bullshit and flatout insulting. Give credit where credit is due.
[/quote]

Alan,

If you haven't learned by know, Ian has a bad habit of making very reckless statements on here. He enters into these conversations like he is an expert, and then the first time anyone questions his authority he turns on the superintendent profession in general. The best thing to do is ignore him.

Heaven help the superintendents out there whose members are coming to Ian, or for that matter GCA in general, for information about whatever problems they may be having on their golf courses.  :P

« Last Edit: August 05, 2010, 05:41:20 AM by Bradley Anderson »

Steve Okula

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Bacterial Wilt?
« Reply #31 on: August 05, 2010, 06:42:29 AM »
Bradley,

Now you've done it. Watch what happens next.
The small wheel turns by the fire and rod,
the big wheel turns by the grace of God.

Alan FitzGerald CGCS MG

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Bacterial Wilt?
« Reply #32 on: August 05, 2010, 06:50:22 AM »
Bradley, you're right, I'm out!
« Last Edit: August 05, 2010, 06:59:49 AM by Alan FitzGerald »
Golf construction & maintenance are like creating a masterpiece; Da Vinci didn't paint the Mona Lisa's eyes first..... You start with the backdrop, layer on the detail and fine tune the finished product into a masterpiece

Bradley Anderson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Bacterial Wilt?
« Reply #33 on: August 05, 2010, 07:04:37 AM »
Steve,

Last week Ian wrote this classic:

"I guess one thing I don't like in the business is this whole "let's talk about it but we can't say anything" business. If it's known what caused the problem why hide it? This summer has brought very extraordinary circumstances to superintendents. Even to the point where the GCSAA stepped in, pleasantly surprised BTW. If it's wet wilt just say it's wet wilt. If it's pythium just say it's pythium. If it's something completely new that nobody knows what it is just say it. I'm a straight forward guy and I'd rather know, talk about it, and come up with a solution rather than start a thread to talk about it but not be allowed to talk about it on the thread."

Can you imagine if this guy was on GCA working on a solution to what has happened to your golf course?

Ian Larson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Bacterial Wilt?
« Reply #34 on: August 05, 2010, 03:27:48 PM »
Super Brad,

it's interesting how on GCA opinions and criticisms are flying around left and right about this architect and his flawed style or the ASGCA the USGA and anything else related to golf. But as soon as something is said about the superintendent profession, god forbid, this is what happens. I totaly had a lapse in judgement by stating my opinion and forgot that it is the one thing we cannot talk about, state an opinion or crticise on here. The GCSAA and the golf course managent industry is off limits. It is a perfect industry with perfect superintendents who can do no wrong. There is nothing wreckless with me pointing out that the supers who got through the summer well might have actually done something better and different than the guy across the street who lost grass. I don't think that's unreasonable or wreckless. I think more credit should be given to those guys instead of just saying they got "lucky". Saying that these guys just got "lucky" is just as bad as saying the guy who lost grass might have done something wrong or could have done something differently. But implying that is off limits on here....yet we can all say how an architect took a great piece of land and completely ruined it with his design. Your last posts only examplify what I'm saying.

If you want to criticise what I'm saying agronomically go ahead. But do it and back up what you're criticising about instead of...

"Can you imagine if this guy was on GCA working on a solution to what has happened to your golf course?"

I'm only posting what I've been taught by other superintendents and what I believe in agronomically. If you disagree, fine. Show me where I'm wrong and back it up instead of just getting personal. I love learning new things.

In response to your statement....we all know that your solution would be to get out the jugs of fungicide when it could be classic bentgrass decline which is more physiological than it is disease. And raising the height of cut and spraying fungicides isn't going to turn it around.
« Last Edit: August 05, 2010, 03:39:09 PM by Ian Larson »

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Bacterial Wilt?
« Reply #35 on: August 05, 2010, 03:36:53 PM »
Ian,

Have you called Scott yet to discuss it to see if you can help?

Your speculations on here are worthless without the inclusion of the guy that knows everything that lead up to the problem...and to suggest its his obligation to come on here and talk about it is ludicrous.

For what it's worth, the grass is growing in really well at Huntingdon Valley so I'm guessing the idea of letting the guy that knows their turf the best figure out is paying off so far...

Ian Larson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Bacterial Wilt?
« Reply #36 on: August 05, 2010, 03:50:33 PM »
Jim,

This thread is about Bacterial Wilt and other diseases with what has happened in the entire northeast region. I don't believe I made a single mention of HVCC or what is going on there. Because I don't know. So I'm not sure what you're talking about.

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Bacterial Wilt?
« Reply #37 on: August 05, 2010, 03:58:57 PM »
Ian,

Are you really not sure what I am talking about?

Bradley's quotation of your comments were directly from the HVCC thread from last week...it was your response to me saying it's inappropriate to speculate about what happened out there with no facts to support any position.

I don't think anything should be closed to conversation, but blind speculation just takes up space and makes it tough to find the valuable stuff in a thread.

Ian Larson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Bacterial Wilt?
« Reply #38 on: August 05, 2010, 04:20:38 PM »
Jim,

if you guys want to inject HVCC as the poster boy for all of this go ahead but I'm not. This thread isn't about HVCC. It's not about any club at all specifically. It's about disease which obviously ties into the summer in the northeast. On the HVCC thread I joined many other posters with talking about what diseases were actually being found on the greens in the northeast. I didn't start the thread nor was I the only one posting. It's when there were comments made that we shouldn't be speculating that I said why start a thread about a specific club and what happened then say we can't talk about it? I merely thee pythium into the discussion that was already talking about wet wilt because the conditions were perfect for pythium as well. I also said that Scott is one of the best in the business and the greens are in good hands for sure with getting them back. I don't know Scott, never been to the club, don't know what happened. But me suggesting pythium as a possibilty after several others were already talking about other diseases isn't me trying to diagnose HVCC specifically nor does it mean that the ridiculous notion of me calling Scott should happen. I'm sure the greens are looking great and Scott has a complete handle on everything. So on this thread, if you don't mind, I'd like to talk disease in general.

JR Potts

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Bacterial Wilt?
« Reply #39 on: August 05, 2010, 04:36:58 PM »
We had dinner with Dr. Vargas last week and he talked briefly about bacterial wilt in reference to the issue of planting more than one variety of grass on greens.

Dr. Vargas was the one who isolated the bacteria from infected leaves at Butler National - the first major club that was attacked. Anyways, he stated that the newer bents should never be in danger of a pathogen like bacterial wilt because they have so much genetic diversity bred in to them. 

I thought Butler had a newer bent - A1 maybe?

Bradley Anderson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Bacterial Wilt?
« Reply #40 on: August 05, 2010, 05:18:59 PM »
We had dinner with Dr. Vargas last week and he talked briefly about bacterial wilt in reference to the issue of planting more than one variety of grass on greens.

Dr. Vargas was the one who isolated the bacteria from infected leaves at Butler National - the first major club that was attacked. Anyways, he stated that the newer bents should never be in danger of a pathogen like bacterial wilt because they have so much genetic diversity bred in to them. 

I thought Butler had a newer bent - A1 maybe?

Bulter was built in 1972 with C-15 grass on the greens . The C-15 decline at Butler was in 1980. Sorry I did not clarify that.
Virtually all the C-15 greens in the country eventually succumbed to bacterial wilt, not just Butler. Dr. Vargas was the first scientist to figure out that it was a bacteria. The reason why C-15 was so susceptible to the problem was because it was bred with only one parent plant. Whereas the newer varieties of bent are bred from multiple parent plants, and with far more resistant to infectious agents like a bacteria.

In 1936 C-15 was selected from a patch of South German creeping bentgrass on a green in Toronto. From there it was cloned from vegatative cuttings, and as such, every grass plant on a C-15 green was an identical match to the original mother plant. So if one plant was attacked by an infectious agent, all of the plants became infected. Turf breeders have hence bred much more genetic diversity into bentgrasses to make it harder for infectious agents to wipe out entire populations.

JR Potts

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Bacterial Wilt?
« Reply #41 on: August 05, 2010, 05:37:35 PM »
Good to know.  That's very interesting.

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back