Bacterial streaming

[Erythrone]

Anyone knows this test? Useful on the field for some crops. And it is cheap. Maybe it could be interesting to use it for diagnosing orchid problems. How many times we say "it could be a fungal or it could be a bacterial disease".


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYRQeOwDRkA

 

[Ray]

That's a new one to me, but my brief reading this morning suggests that such streaming only occurs with bacterial infections, and not from other pathogens, chemical treatments, etc.

Now we have to determine if it's worth cutting up a plant when 85% of all plant pathogens are fungal...


Ray Barkalow
firstrays.com

 

[gonewild]

Now we have to determine if it's worth cutting up a plant when 85% of all plant pathogens are fungal...
Ray Barkalow
firstrays.com

Does that makes it 15% worth it?

 

[Erythrone]

Thank you for your opinions .


About the need to cutting down the plant : I do not think we need a lot of tissue:

http://wiki.bugwood.org/Bacterial_streaming

Does that makes it 15% worth it?

I agree it is not always necessary to know if we must deal with bacteria or fungus. But sometimes, orchid growers must fight a lot against a strange disease. 3 years ago , I discovered a very bad disease on many plants. I did not know what it was and no one was sure if it was bacterial or fungal. I tried to fight both ... I used Cleary, cinnamon extract with alcohol, antiobiotics... And lost almost all the infested plants. If I was sure it was bacterial (due to diffusion ) fungal (no streaming) I would have used only stuff able to control the pathogen.

 

[gonewild]

I agree it is not always necessary to know if we must deal with bacteria or fungus. But sometimes, orchid growers must fight a lot against a strange disease. 3 years ago , I discovered a very bad disease on many plants. I did not know what it was and no one was sure if it was bacterial or fungal. I tried to fight both ... I used Cleary, cinnamon extract with alcohol, antiobiotics... And lost almost all the infested plants. If I was sure it was bacterial (due to diffusion ) fungal (no streaming) I would have used only stuff able to control the pathogen.

I do agree with you. I think even more important than determining if the disease is bacterial or fungal is to actually know if the problem is a disease or a symptom that we think is a disease. I am suspecting that at least some of the persistent and random bacterial infections may not actually be disease but rather cell death caused by chemical imbalance in the plant caused by nutritional imbalance. It would be great to be able to test at the first sign of an infection to know.

 

[Erythrone]

I do agree with you. I think even more important than determining if the disease is bacterial or fungal is to actually know if the problem is a disease or a symptom that we think is a disease. I am suspecting that at least some of the persistent and random bacterial infections may not actually be disease but rather cell death caused by chemical imbalance in the plant caused by nutritional imbalance. It would be great to be able to test at the first sign of an infection to know.

Very interesting idea... !

 

[TyroneGenade]

Bacteria grow much faster than fungi.

Get some agar plates, take samples and put them on the plates. Bacteria would show in a day while fungus would take several. As you are looking for internal pathogens, surface sterilization for 15 minutes in 3% H2O2 with some dishwashing detergent would be enough to kill surface pathogens but leave internal ones intact. Take the sterile piece, cut it in half on a sterile surface (wipe down the 3% H2O2) and then place the piece cut-side down on the agar. Bacteria will "creep" within 24 hours while fungi may take a week to explode out of the tissue.

 

[Rick]

I do agree with you. I think even more important than determining if the disease is bacterial or fungal is to actually know if the problem is a disease or a symptom that we think is a disease. I am suspecting that at least some of the persistent and random bacterial infections may not actually be disease but rather cell death caused by chemical imbalance in the plant caused by nutritional imbalance. It would be great to be able to test at the first sign of an infection to know.

Or if bacterial and fungal pathogens were just opportunistically invading due to chemical/nutritional imbalance.

Plants do actually have a strong immune systems to fight infection on their own.

The pragmatic issue of what to do after affirming a bacteria or fungus is what to do about it.

Seems like regardless of the cause, we just throw generic biocides at the problem because they are cheap and accessible.

Are we willing to pay top $ for pinpointed antibiotics for bacterial infections when topical additions are a poor/ inefficient way of getting the drug into the plant.

 

[Erythrone]

Or if bacterial and fungal pathogens were just opportunistically invading due to chemical/nutritional imbalance.

Yes, I also think many diseases are on plants because something is wrong with the growing conditions. Could be chemical/nutritional imabalance...But maybe due also to temperature unsutable for the plant? And what about water, relative humidity? Stale conditions of the medium?

Are we willing to pay top $ for pinpointed antibiotics for bacterial infections when topical additions are a poor/ inefficient way of getting the drug into the plant.

Not me... but I won't use fongicides if I am sure it is a bacterial disease.

 

[Rick]

Yes, I also think many diseases are on plants because something is wrong with the growing conditions. Could be chemical/nutritional imabalance...But maybe due also to temperature unsutable for the plant? And what about water, relative humidity? Stale conditions of the medium?

Yup

That's why the typical "cure" rate for topical application of anti fungal or bacterial "medications" is so low.

Basically just trying to put a band-aid on a deep systemic problem that's not being fixed in the meantime.

I've worked with pathogenic fungi (and virus for that matter) in a lot of different organisms (including humans). They are virtually indestructible without killing the patient. About the best you can do is low level control and find out the root cause of imbalance for why the organism can't develop it's own immunity to the problem.

 

[Bjorn]

If you are interested in that topic, check up the relationship between Si and plants defense system.

 

[Rick]

If you are interested in that topic, check up the relationship between Si and plants defense system.

Yes or salicylic acid.

 

[Bjorn]

No, salicylic acid and hydrogen peroxide acts as signal carriers in the immune response system, while Si is involved in synthesis of the defense chemicals. Plants with too low Si statis will have problems in producing the specific and nonspecific ferments used in the immune system. Sailsylic acid can trigger the defense system, but this cannot do much without silicon. Btw. Hydrogen peroxide has much of the same effect, but might be a bit more potent according to some unpublished data I have access to.

 

[gonewild]

Plants with too low Si statis will have problems in producing the specific and nonspecific ferments used in the immune system. .

OK if the silicon is too low the immune system is compromised. Let's for now assume that is true.
To date adding more silicon as a nutrient has not shown great results.
So my thought is that it is not the low quantity of silicon present causing a problem but rather a high amount of another element that antagonizes the Si and makes it appear to be in shortage.

Since increasing Si does not seem to have a definite effect then lowering the antagonizing element seems the logically step.
We all know what the suspected bad element might be. :wink:

 

[Rick]

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v444/n7117/full/nature05286.html

Looks like most of what chases disease invaders in plants is carbon based.

It doesn't seem to take a lot of Si to make huge carbon based molecules.




http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1016/j.femsle.2005.06.034/pdf

This one on silicon suggests that it may work as a signal like salicylic acid to get the plant to produce lots of enzymes and hormones.

 

[gonewild]

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v444/n7117/full/nature05286.html

Looks like most of what chases disease invaders in plants is carbon based.

It doesn't seem to take a lot of Si to make huge carbon based molecules.

I assume it does take a lot of carbon to make the huge carbon based molecules?

Low Carbon supply combined with excess nutrient elements may be the problem that opens a door to disease attack?

Even though people believe CO2 levels are a problem in the atmosphere it is real easy for CO2 to be depleted in a closed growing environment.

 

[Rick]

Plants are 99% water and carbon products.

That 1% of inorganic ingredients is divided amongst N P K Ca Mg S Si and all the traces.

It only takes a tiny amount of these to ensure the plant runs, and they don't run the plant.

 

[Stone]

Since increasing Si does not seem to have a definite effect

You should read more of the Si trials Lance.

then lowering the antagonizing element seems the logically step.
We all know what the suspected bad element might be. :wink:

We all know what the suspected element may be?? We don't even know if there is antagonism do we? But yes if there is one, is has to be.....let me guess...ahhh...Hang on I know this....

 

[Bjorn]

Just to make it clear, the Si is not used as a constituent in anything, its main function is to assist in the production of such compounds. Its a bit like making a mould for casting, the mould is necessary, but it is not the product.
And even if plants normally wont die if Si is devoid, if you look at the ash fraction then that is to a big extent composed of Si. Which means that the plant take it up at extents that are similar to those of P, K and Ca. We all know that the amount of dissolved Si in nature is very low, but still the plants absorb it ? Just for fun?

 

[Rick]

Just to make it clear, the Si is not used as a constituent in anything, its main function is to assist in the production of such compounds. Its a bit like making a mould for casting, the mould is necessary, but it is not the product.
And even if plants normally wont die if Si is devoid, if you look at the ash fraction then that is to a big extent composed of Si. Which means that the plant take it up at extents that are similar to those of P, K and Ca. We all know that the amount of dissolved Si in nature is very low, but still the plants absorb it ? Just for fun?

Sure they pick up Si. The amount seems to be variable with species, and very little data for orchids (grasses seem to pick up a lot).

Maybe the closest pertinent data I've come across is leaf litter data for Sumatra. Average Si was 8.04 mg/gr, which was higher than P (0.45)
K (2.47), Mg (1.56). But not higher than N (14.1) and Ca (14.02).

Aluminum and sulfur were also fairly high relative to NPK. Al(1.98) and S(1.66)

However still talking relatively (the ratio conundrum) high within a leaf (or discarded plant material). And still tiny compared to carbon.

The amount needed of any of these is tiny compared to what we like to pile on, and there's a strong tendency to keep adding more and causing antagonisms rather than compensating for deficiencies.