Skip to main content

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

If you like my blog and want to support what I do you can support me on Patreon or paypal. Thanks!






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