Skip to main content

Is the best solution always the best?


Often when we search for solutions to our pest problems we are presented with the best most effective solution. Obviously this is what we would expect, especially when coming from a consultant or expert. No one wants to recommend something that might not really work that good right? Typically the best solution is the one that provides the best control. What if we have other criteria? Doesn't true IPM practices demand alternative actions?

Case in point this summer I had a particularly bad outbreak of Cyanobacteria on my putting greens. I did some quick research and the main recommendation I found was to spray cholorthalonil. Great. A simple and relatively cheap solution. The only problem is that I have set some rather stringent EIQ goals for pesticide use. One light application of chlorothalonil would use up half of my yearly budgeted EIQ. I needed another option. Chlorothalonil would only be used in a worst case scenario. I would continue to research options and closely monitor the health and playability of the greens.
Chicken and the Egg. Did the thinned turf cause the Cyanobacteria or did the Cyanobacteria cause the thinning?
I tried to dig deeper but almost everywhere I searched the recommendation was chlorothalonil. Of course it was, why would anyone recommend anything else? That stuff works!

Finally I was made aware of this research which outlined the impacts that fertility, soil moisture, and many other cultural practices had on the disease. OF COURSE THEY DO! It showed that ammonium sulfate, proper moisture management, wetting agents and phosphite all had impacts on the Cyanobacteria. I just needed to know which products did what.

The poa seems to be more susceptible to damage than the bentgrass
I was already doing most of these things except my main source of nitrogen fertility was urea. As I apply my fertilizer on a weekly schedule I changed the ratio of ammonium sulfate as my nitrogen source to 50% of nitrogen required. My greens were also a bit wet so I turned off the irrigation system.

It was like the disease was telling me "you are getting lazy, Jason. Smarten up. Your greens are too wet." It's a common trend I find. Especially when driving down pesticide use. Get lazy? Get punished!

Another thing I tried was a Zerotol (hydrogen peroxide) application. I put down some knock out plots to see if this product was effective. It wasn't.

Thinned areas around perimeter of the green probably caused by cyanobacteria
After a few weeks of a higher ratio of ammonium sulphate fertilizer the cyanobacteria was gone. With such a simple modification to my management practices I was able to solve this troublesome issue. The costs were practically nil and the EIQ was also substantially lower even if I included the additional sulfur into the equation.

I think a lot of the time we get caught into the trap of chasing perfection. We NEED the best solution. Sometimes this is true. Sometimes the environmental conditions, politics, and clientele demand the best. I think for a lot of us we can probably opt for the less than perfect option and save some money, reduce our EIQ and learn to prevent the issues in the future. I learned that sometimes it is very difficult to find out the "not best" solution. Sometimes all we need is a simple change to shift the cards in our favor.

If I had immediately gone with the best solution I would have failed my EIQ goals for the year and I would have missed out on a great learning opportunity. I learned that a little ammonium sulphate in the summer months isn't a bad idea. There was minimal burning (I let it sit on the leaf blade all day before watering in. sizzle sizzle) and the problem was easily managed. I will be keeping a higher ratio of ammonium sulphate in my summer fertilizer applications in the future to keep this pretty widespread disease at bay. I will also remember that moisture management is key when trying to make significant reductions in pesticide use. You just can't get lazy.

So whenever we are faced with a disease issue or any issue really I encourage you to dig deep. Ask twitter, try a few things. You will probably learn something new, save some money, and reduce your environmental impact. Don't just jump at the "best" solution.
Greens still aren't dead......

Labels:

Popular posts from this blog

Turfgrass speedo is still my most important tool for managing turf growth after 4 years.

It wasn't the easiest year for growing grass , but the conditions were still pretty good. Almost 4 years ago exactly, I came up with the idea of comparing actual clipping yields to the "ideal" clipping yield or the clipping yield adjusted using the Growth Potential Model . Since then, it has proved to be a much more useful tool to manage growth than I originally thought .  It has been almost a decade since I started making observations on plant health and playability and how it relates to the clipping yield. I have been constantly searching for ways to get the growth rate right as often as I can and this tool seems to be the best way I have seen so far, and might ultimately, be the best way going forward. To prove this point I will discuss in a future post, the success I've had with pest control in the past few years (for the most part (Not withstanding the times where I think my greens are dead but they actually aren't...thanks T)). Never needed less There are ...
Read more

Do you have enough?

I recently discussed how we can use fertilizer ratios to simplify how much fertilizer we apply to help us keep above the MLSN guidelines . When we get a soil test done it is a static amount of nutrients found in the soil. Even if you are above the MLSN guidelines at the time of testing, it doesn't guarantee that you will remain at or above the guidelines as the grass grows and consumes nutrients. There is math that you can use to determine exactly how much nutrient you need to apply to ensure that you remain at or above the MLSN guidelines. For many, this is much too complicated. For that reason I made a quick cheat sheet to help you determine how much of each nutrient you can expect to use each year based off a few different annual nitrogen rates. Nutrient use is based primarily on nitrogen use so the left 2 columns are a few different nitrogen rates. The columns for each nutrient are in PPM and are designed to help you look at your current soil test PPM (mehlich 3) and determin...
Read more

How to quantify nutrient content in liquid fertilizer

In a recent post, I discussed how it was actually cheaper to spray soluble vs granular fertilizer. What about if we use pre-mixed liquid fertilizer? How do we even figure out how much nutrient we are applying with pre-mixed liquid fertilizer?  Before I learned that you could simply dissolve soluble fertilizer in water and apply it in a sprayer, I was a big user of pre-mixed liquid fertilizers. One of the issues I initially had was figuring out exactly how much of each nutrient I was applying. The math wasn't as straightforward is it was with granular fertilizers. It turns out, it's actually not that difficult but requires an extra step.  First, we need to convert the liquid volume into a mass. Many products will have the product density displayed on the label or you can look in the Safety Data Sheet (SDS) for that information as well. No SDS? Should you be using products without an SDS? Even if this information isn't included on the label it is very easy to figure out. All ...
Read more