Jon,
Let me respond to your statements below.
“All plants and animals become ill from time to time but in most cases they recover and thrive without any medication. It is only when occasionally that turf grass dies from a disease if it is in a comfortable environment and in such cases you might have to act before it becomes to wide spread.”
I don’t know what it is like in Inverness Scotland, but in most parts of America, the disease dollar spot in particular, attacks turf when the humidity and temperatures reach a certain threshold. A big factor in the growth of this pathogen is dew formation. When the combined air and humidity readings set the turf up to be covered in a heavy dew, for many hours all through the night to late morning hours, the pathogen naturally begins to grow in that environment.
Dollar spot is generally worse on greens tees and fairways. Because we are providing a good ball roll and lie - there are simply more leaf blades per square inch in golf course turf, thus a much heavier dew formation.
Let me emphasize that modern American green keeping practices did not provoke dollar spot. If you go back to the very earliest American green keeping periodicals you will read of a disease that they referred to as “small brown patch”. They would later distinguish this from large brown patch, and give it the name dollar spot – owing to the fact that it is about the same size as a silver dollar. This disease was prevalent on American golf courses from the very beginning. And in those days, as you might guess, they were much more organic in their approach than we are today. They did not have nearly as many synthetic compounds. And they certainly did not over-stress the turf by cutting it too short, nor were they capable of overwatering given the small irrigation systems of those days. But they had serious dollar spot problems long before chemicals.
Dollar spot is not like a cold or the flu that happens from time to time as you put it. Dollar spot is not a pathological epidemic that you quarantine at one golf course to keep it from spreading to another. Dollar spot happens every where, and every time that the environmental conditions trigger it. If you had our conditions it would happen on your golf course too.
Some superintendents spray preventatively for dollar spot, but only after they have learned from experience that they will use less chemical in a year from following a preventative schedule, than they do with a curative schedule. You are aware, are you not, that curative rates of fungicides are generally twice as high as preventative rates?
Some superintendents have learned from experience that a pre-emptive fungicide application will knock down the population of spores early in the year, so that they may go longer between spray intervals and follow more of a curative approach through the remainder of the year.
I am very fortunate that my 18th fairway develops dollar spot two days before the other areas on my golf course. So I can wait until I see it there and then spray. Then we let it go until we see it flare up again on 18 fairway. The reason why 18 fairway gets it first is because we mow that fairway last and subsequently the dew stays on there longer than any other fairway, hence more time for the disease to develop. We call 18 fairway our indicator area.
“This thread is about chemical free courses and how it might be possible to do it. Brad has chosen to add very little to the topic and consistently said it is impossible.”
This is unfair -I have given one example of a way to reduce and possibly eliminate the use of chemicals for pythium. Also I have shared my experimentation with Civitas, a mineral compound that is showing control of disease. I also have shared a way to control grubs without adversely effecting pollinators. All you have contributed to this subject are pious platitudes.
“Brad used the example of pathogens in the rough to throw attention away from the fact that most fungus based diseases are water related. As any green keeper worth his salt knows you find these pathogens all over the course and they only become a problem when they become epidemic. So why does he need to spray to prevent disease ruining his green which he waters but not the rough which he doesn't water? It can't be the humidity because it will be humid in both places. Height of cut will be a factor if he cuts lower than the grasses comfort point.”
My only reason for even bringing the rough into this argument was to demonstrate that irrigation is not the causal factor of pathogens because we find the same pathogens in the rough. I might have added that it is not as problematic in the rough as it is on greens or fairways. I mean you don’t putt in the rough. It is not as severe in the rough, probably because the dew isn't as heavy there where the grass blades are less dense? And the rough is not the aesthetic focal point of the golf hole. So its not necessary to treat the rough.
“This must be discounted as Brad is not influenced by outside people…..”
There is an prevailing sentiment on GCA that ostensibly blames the greenkeepers, at least in part, for not standing up to the pressure to provide Augusta green. Some have even suggested that we are being bought out or bribed by agri-chemical companies. And yet, most American greenkeepers are in fact following their own agronomic regimens without outside influence or pressure. I would add that most are following a plan that is economically judicious and good for the game and the environment. I will go at it hammer and tong with anyone who wants to challenge me on that one.
“…………and no decent green keeper stresses his sward unnecessarily all the time.”
I would clarify that for good playability you have to keep the turf on the lean and dry side of its limits of tolerance. But there are diminishing returns to how far you can push that.
“It can't be too much fertiliser as though as he has already said this has been cut back. So why does he think that if he does not spray every 10 days or so he will sustain considerable damage to his greens?”
No I said that we have all cut back from the amounts of fertilizers that were being applied to golf courses in the past. That was a general statement about our profession in response to a question about cutting expenses. I was attempting to explain that many of us would be cutting in to muscle if we cut back any further than we have already. Also I did not state that I spray every 10 days. I used the phrase ten days in a rhetorical question.
“I have to say that I don't care about what Brad does at his course. My real issue with Brad is that when you say something that does not fit into his little vision of the world he belittles and attacks you with the attitude of 'I am SUPER BRAD'”
Super Brad is a nickname that the golf pro gave me here. It’s a joke. As far as attacking you goes, I think that I have responded to you in exactly the way a radical should be responded to.
“………and I know what I think is right, if you don't agree with it you are wrong. He deliberately misinterprets what is said, ignores questions that he can not answer without contradicting himself and tries to mislead people with arguments such as pathogens in the rough knowing that many people on this site do not have the knowledge to read the situation correctly.”
Jon just because something is odd compared to your experience, doesn’t mean that it is a contradiction.
“In a situation where some thing is being put forward that is obviously wrong isn't it correct that such should be challenged?”
Jon, you are basically challenging the way green keeping is being executed in my part of the world. I have no doubt that in your part of the world you are dealing with issues that we do not understand here, and so you will never hear me asking you to justify your methods. I have stated that in America we do not spray either when our conditions are like the ones that you work in every day. I don’t know what else I can say.