SOIL SURFACTANTS (OR
WETTING AGENTS):
5 Things Practitioners Should Know
THE H2B VISA PROGRAM IN TENNESSEE
Best of luck this growing season
inally, the cold has lifted and warmer weather is here! The grind is in full effect for turf managers across the state. Whether you are at a golf course, sports field, sod farm or T&O, growing season is in full swing. Now is the time I always look forward to. This is where we, as turf managers, shine. We get to showcase our knowledge and abilities about the science of grass.
This is also an end for some. As kids graduate and prepare for the next steps of life, it is a bittersweet feeling. It’s the end of an era and the beginning of another. Don’t forget to take time and spend with your family. As busy as we are, kids and spouses often take a back seat.
Thank you for your continued support of our organization. It truly is a special group of colleagues, friends, and mentors. If any of those kids that are graduating are unsure about the future, mention our industry as an option. We can always use the help.
Best of luck this growing season and please reach out if we can help in any way.
Ryan Storey TTA President
The Tennessee Turfgrass Association serves its members in the industry through education, promotion and representation. The statements and opinions expressed herein are those of the individual authors and do
Tennessee
is
Turfgrass Association
Tennessee 37069 (615) 928-7001 info@ttaonline.org www.ttaonline.org
PUBLISHED BY
Leading Edge Communications, LLC 206 Bridge Street Franklin, Tennessee 37064 (615) 790-3718 info@leadingedgecommunications.com
EDITOR
Dr. James Brosnan
TTA OFFICERS
President Ryan Storey Line to Line LLC
Vice President Ryan Blair, CGCS Holston Hills Country Club
Secretary / Treasurer
Sod Farm
Past
Executive
TTA BOARD OF DIRECTORS
(OR WETTING AGENTS): 5 Things
Should Know SOIL SURFACTANTS
Practitioners
By Rebecca
Zoe Haub Hinton, Department of Plant Sciences, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee USA
Michael A. Fidanza, Pennsylvania State University – Berks Campus, Reading, Pennsylvania USA
Stanley J. Kostka, Pennsylvania State University – Berks Campus, Reading, Pennsylvania USA
Soil surfactants, commonly referred to by practitioners as “wetting agents”, can be useful tools for turfgrass managers. These products are traditionally applied to alleviate soil water repellency and localized dry spot, improve water movement through the soil profile, and enhance soil moisture uniformity. This article highlights select scientific findings and key considerations for end-users interested in utilizing these products in turfgrass and landscape management.
What Are Soil Surfactants?
A soil surfactant is essentially a “surface active agent” that reduces the surface tension of a liquid, thus allowing the liquid to interact with other liquids or solids (Zontek & Kostka, 2012). Most soil surfactant products marketed in the turfgrass industry are composed of block copolymers (Fidanza et al., 2020), which are constructed of both water-loving (hydrophilic) and water-repellent (hydrophobic) components. Simply put, they function to lower the surface tension of water and make hydrophobic soil particle surfaces “wettable”, thereby improving the interaction between the water and soil within the turfgrass rootzone (Kostka, 2000).
In turfgrass management, soil surfactants have long been used to address problems associated with soil water repellency (or soil hydrophobicity and localized dry spot (LDS) (Cisar et al., 2000; Dekker et al., 2005; Wilkinson and Miller, 1978). More recently, their role has expanded to general water management, including promoting water conservation and improving uniform water infiltration and distribution throughout the rootzone (Gelernter et al., 2015; Schiavon & Serena, 2023). This has also sparked interest in their effects on overall turfgrass quality and the placement and performance of other inputs like pesticides, fertilizers, and
biostimulants. The growing use of soil surfactants is reflected in increased research on soil water repellency in turfgrass systems over the past two decades and the rising availability of products for consumers (Fidanza et al., 2020; Fidanza et al., 2023; Kostka & Fidanza, 2019; O’Brien et al., 2023; Whitlark, 2021).
Key Uses of Soil Surfactants in Turfgrass:
• Enhance water infiltration: Alleviate soil water repellency.
• Improve moisture retention and uniformity: Promote consistent wetting across treated areas.
• Support water conservation: Can increase volumetric water content and reduce water waste by minimizing runoff and preferential flow.
What is hydrophobicity?
Hydrophobic soils develop due to the accumulation of organic compounds and biologically derived substances on soil particles (Cisar et al., 2000; Dekker & Ritsema, 2000; Kostka, 2000). Severe hydrophobic soil conditions are also associated with fairy ring occurrence in turfgrass sites (Fidanza et al., 2007). Overall, these hydrophobic or water repellent soil conditions are particularly problematic in sand-based rootzones, which are common in golf course putting greens, tee boxes, sand-capped fairways, and select athletic fields. Sand-based rootzones are more prone to hydrophobicity because the surface area of sand particles allows organic compounds to coat and interact with them more easily. Additionally, the rapid or frequent drying of sandier soils can impact microbial activity, limiting the natural breakdown of these substances.
Grubbs Bowling, Department of Plant Sciences, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee USA
Most research on soil surfactants focuses on golf course putting greens, but growing water challenges and affordable products are driving interest in using them for other turfgrass systems, especially in drought-prone areas facing summer or winter stress (Park et al., 2005; Schiavon & Serena, 2023; Whitlark et al., 2023).
Five Things Practitioners Should Know
1. Soil surfactants generally provide reliable water management benefits in sand-based rootzones, but their effectiveness in native or mineral soils is not as thoroughly investigated.
In sand-based rootzones, soil surfactants have been shown to effectively reduce hydrophobicity, mitigate LDS, and improve irrigation efficiency by enhancing water uniformity and increasing soil moisture (Bigelow et al., 2024; Dekker et al., 2019; Soldat et al. 2010). Research indicates that soil surfactants can support water conservation in sandy soils, particularly when irrigation or rainfall is limited, leading to improved turfgrass cover, quality, or both. On golf course putting greens, soil surfactants can offer additional benefits related to improving surface firmness and playability (Bauer et al., 2017).
Research on soil surfactants applied to turfgrasses maintained on native soils is limited but promising. One study showed that soil surfactants increased soil moisture by up to 16% and improved turfgrass quality, green cover, and soil moisture uniformity in deficit-irrigated hybrid bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon x C. transvaalensis) fairways on mineral soil (Xiang et al., 2021). Similarly, studies in warm-season lawn environments showed that soil surfactants generally enhanced turfgrass quality and green cover, though results were sometimes inconsistent (Baliga et al., 2019; Chang et al., 2020). A recent study on fairway-height creeping bentgrass (Agrostis stolonifera L.) maintained on clay loam soil documented a 35 to 40% reduction of irrigation water quantity inputs achieved from soil surfactant-treated turfgrass (Nolan & Fidanza, 2024).
Overall, as soil and rootzone complexity increases, predicting the performance and benefits of soil surfactants becomes more difficult.
PRACTICAL RECOMMENDATIONS
These products may offer the most reliable benefits as a water management tool when:
1) soils are coarse-textured (sandy)
2) soil hydrophobicity is a known or reoccurring issue, and/or
3) water availability from rainfall or irrigation is limited
However, all turfgrass managers are encouraged to try these soil surfactant products to determine what may work well for them depending on their management resources and goals.
2. Understanding your unique site is important; Don’t rely solely on product language to make your selection
The increasing number and variety of soil surfactant products can make selection decisions overwhelming for end-users (Kostka & Fidanza, 2018). Two publicly available articles provide excellent insights on this topic: Communication of Soil Water Repellency Causes, Problems, and Solutions of Intensively Managed Amenity Turf from 2000 to 2020 by Drs. Mike Fidanza, Stanley Kostka, and Cale Bigelow, and Penetrants vs. Retainers: Understanding Wetting Agent Claims and the Science Behind Them by Dr. Daniel O’Brien et al., published by the USGA Green Section in 2023. Both articles discuss the nuances of soil surfactant use and selection.
In a nutshell, the marketing terms “penetrants” and “retainers” are often used to describe soil surfactant products. Penetrants claim to improve water infiltration by reducing soil water repellency, while retainers aim to keep moisture in the rootzone for sustained turfgrass hydration or soil water accessibility. However, it has been difficult for university and industry researchers to consistently replicate these marketing claims or perceptions in a field setting where environmental conditions and plant/soil interactions are more complex (Kostka & Fidanza, 2019, O’Brien et al., 2024).
Practitioners should also be aware that soil surfactant terminology or technical information is not standardized. Unlike pesticide labels regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, soil surfactant labels are not federally regulated. Manufacturers are not required to disclose their full chemical composition or specific “active ingredient”, which limits transparency and can make it harder for university researchers to conduct comprehensive product evaluations. For example, many soil surfactant products will list ‘block copolymer’ on the product label, however, the exact composition may not be disclosed due to patent or proprietary protection.
Research suggests soil surfactant performance may or may not match marketing claims, and will depend most on application timing, post-application irrigation, soil type, turfgrass species, and environmental conditions.
PRACTICAL RECOMMENDATIONS
• Seek research-based information on a soil surfactant product to help with decision-making.
• Conduct your own evaluation on site to guide product selection.
o Assess performance using visual turfgrass quality or precise tools for soil moisture and surface firmness measurements.
o Test various products, application rates, and application timings to identify what works best for your specific conditions and expectations.
3. Soil surfactants can be a valuable addition to your winter management toolbox but should be combined with other best practices.
Winterkill is a recurring challenge for turfgrass managers across Tennessee, particularly for those managing warm-season turfgrasses. Contributing factors can include desiccation, or drying of turfgrass tissues, which can be worsened by soil hydrophobicity (Hutchens et al., 2024). Over the past two years, the combination of cold temperatures and drought conditions in many parts of Tennessee has increased the risk of desiccation-related winterkill. While research on optimal soil moisture thresholds for winter management remains limited, studies conducted at the University of Arkansas and the University of Nebraska-Lincoln have explored the use of soil surfactants during colder months (DeBoer et al., 2019; DeBoer et al., 2020; Michael & Kreuser, 2020).
Findings suggest that soil surfactants can play a valuable role in a comprehensive winter management strategy that includes physical measures of covers or sand topdressing. Late-fall applications of soil surfactants may reduce soil hydrophobicity and, in some cases, enhance spring green-up. However, their effectiveness largely depends on environmental factors, such as rainfall and winter temperatures, and these products tend to show the most benefit during drier winters and are best used as a supplement to physical protection methods (DeBoer et al., 2019; DeBoer et al., 2020; Michael & Kreuser, 2020). Tailoring these approaches to site-specific conditions is essential for ensuring optimal turfgrass survival through the winter.
PRACTICAL RECOMMENDATIONS
• Soil surfactants can be applied in late fall to reduce soil hydrophobicity and retain soil moisture in problem areas.
• Focus on using soil surfactants in drier winters or desiccation-prone areas, adjusting application timing and rates to suite the needs of the turfgrass.
• Combine soil surfactant applications with covers or sand topdressing to enhance winter injury prevention.
4. Benefits of soil surfactants may extend to pest and nutrient management, but these relationships are not always straightforward and require further study.
Soil surfactants influence the effectiveness of fertilizers and pesticides in turfgrass by altering soil moisture and water movement or water interaction within the rootzone. Research shows that soil surfactants can enhance nutrient availability in the rootzone during dry periods by improving water infiltration, supporting turfgrass health under deficit irrigation (Chang et al., 2020), and impacting nitrogen availability and uptake (Abagandura et al, 2021;
Dekker et al., 2019). Nitrogen mineralization is the biological process through which soil microbes decompose organic matter, converting it into plant-available forms of nitrogen, such as ammonium (NH3-) and nitrate (NO4+). At least one study reported an increase in N mineralization and plant-available N which they attributed to more consistent moisture and a corresponding increase in microbial activity (Dekker et al., 2019). Another study found that surfactants applied with urea increase nitrogen uptake in bermudagrass with utilization rates rising by as much as 67% in sandy clay loam soils compared to urea alone (Abagandura et al., 2021). Soil surfactants can also be effective in managing Type-I fairy ring symptoms by reducing soil hydrophobicity attributed to fungal activity and enhancing fungicide penetration into the rootzone (Fidanza, 2015).
By addressing soil hydrophobicity, soil surfactants promote a more even water distribution and water receptivity of the rootzone, which reduces preferential flow paths where nutrients and pesticides might leach or run off. Thus, soil surfactant applications can improve the effectiveness of these inputs while lowering the risk of environmental harm. Several studies have found that soil surfactants meaningfully reduce nutrient leaching in hydrophobic, sand-based rootzones (Abagandura et al., 2021; Dekker et al., 2019; Aamlid et al., 2009; Larsbo et al., 2008). Two of these studies also showed that soil surfactants decreased fungicide leaching by as much as 80–90% in sand-based systems (Aamlid et al., 2009; Larsbo et al., 2008). Combining soil surfactants with organic amendments like peat may further reduce leaching by increasing soil absorption capacity (Larsbo et al., 2008).
However, newer research from North Carolina State University indicates these relationships are more complex and warrant further study. While soil surfactants improved fungicide movement into deeper soil layers, enhancing effectiveness against root-targeted diseases, different surfactant chemistries can influence fungicide behavior in varying ways. For example, some treatments even increased pesticide leaching, particularly under high rainfall conditions (Hutchens et al., 2020).
In more complex soil systems, the effects of soil surfactants may be less predictable. For example, a Texas study on non-hydrophobic sandy loam soils found that soil surfactants did not significantly reduce runoff or nutrient loss (Chang et al., 2020). However, an earlier California trial conducted on a wettable sandy loam, showed that surfactant treatment resulted in increased infiltration, wetting uniformity, and a reduction in runoff (Mitra et al, 2006). Additionally, research on soil microbial ecology suggests that prolonged soil surfactant use could alter microbial community structure, potentially affecting nutrient cycling and pesticide degradation, though much more research is needed in this area to determine their benefits or consequences to the soil and the rhizosphere (Banks et al., 2014; Carminati et al., 2016). Studies conducted in maize have provided some evidence that surfactants can have positive effects on soil microbiomes and nutrient cycling, improving nutrient availability (Ahmadi et al., 2018; Ahmadi et al., 2017). More research is needed in turfgrass.
Track your tasks better with John Deere Operations Center™ PRO Golf
PRACTICAL RECOMMENDATIONS
• In drought-prone or hydrophobic areas, soil surfactants may improve nutrient availability and soil-directed pesticide placement.
• Consult researchers and monitor regularly if your site has higher risks of groundwater or surface water contamination.
• Take steps to stay up-to-date on research related to this topic, as it remains an understudied area where research is on-going globally.
5. There is still a lot we don’t know.
While more soil surfactant products become available to consumers each year with growing suggestions for potential applications, there remain several knowledge gaps, of which many of have already been addressed by this article and are summarized below:
• How They Work: More research is needed to further understand exactly how soil surfactant’s function or perform, their chemical composition, and how to select soil surfactant products that will provide the best benefit under different environments and
turfgrass management practices. See O’Brien et al., 2024 for the first systematic evaluation of surfactant effects based on chemical composition.
• Soil Health Over Time: We do not fully know how long-term soil surfactant use affects soil microbes, nutrient cycling, or pesticide breakdown .See Abagandura et al and Ahmadi et al. whose research show positive effects on nutrients, soil microbes and nutrient cycling. This is a cutting-edge area.
• Native Soils: Most studies focus on sandy soils; more research is needed to see how soil surfactants perform with other soil types. See Mitra et al. 2006, Abagandura et al. 2021
• Mixing with Other Inputs: There is limited understanding of how soil surfactants affect fertilizers and pesticides and biostimulants, including their movement or placement, persistence, and efficacy.
• Combining with Amendments: More studies are needed on how soil surfactants interact with peat or sand or other amendments typically utilized to improve soils.
• Environmental Impact: We need better data on how soil surfactants impact ecosystems, especially in ecologically sensitive or high-risk areas.
On-Going Research at the University of Tennessee
UT is conducting research independently and in collaboration with Dr. Travis Gannon at North Carolina State University to study soil surfactant interactions with native soils in the transition zone. Independent UT studies focus on seasonal impacts, while collaborative efforts, funded by the Golf Course Superintendents Association of America, examine soil surfactant effects on preemergence herbicide persistence and performance. Stay tuned for updates.
Conclusion
Soil surfactants represent a valuable tool and practice for improving or optimizing water management and water conservation, enhancing turfgrass quality, and addressing soil hydrophobicity. However, their effectiveness depends on proper selection, application timing, post-application irrigation, and integration into broader turfgrass management strategies. As research continues, turfgrass managers must remain adaptable and informed to maximize the benefits of these products.
Triple Threat Tall Fescue has an unbeatable resistance to Brown Patch and Gray Leaf Spot. The deep rooting ability gives it greater resilience under reduced irrigation during periods of drought. Triple Threat delivers a beautiful healthy turfgrass solution.
PRODUCT FEATURES
Dark Attractive Turf
Heat Tolerant
Drought Tolerant
Superior Brown Patch Resistance
Gray Leaf Spot Resistance
fairway wetting agent research at the East Tennessee AgResearch and Education Center in Knoxville.
Figure 2: Master’s student Zoe Haub Hinton laying out trials for
Figure 1: Soil surfactant (wetting agent) treatments used for on-going research at the University of Tennessee
REFERENCES
1. Aamlid, T. S., Larsbo, M., & Jarvis, N. (2009). Effects of surfactant use and peat amendment on leaching of fungicides and nitrate from golf greens. Biologia, 64(4), 419-423.
2. Abagandura, G. O., Park, D., Bridges Jr, W. C., & Brown, K. (2021). Soil surfactants applied with 15N labeled urea increase bermudagrass uptake of nitrogen and reduce nitrogen leaching. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science, 184(3), 378-387.
3. Ahmadi, K., Razavi, B. S., Maharjan, M., Kuzyakov, Y., Kostka, S. J., Carminati, A., & Zarebanadkouki, M. (2018). Effects of rhizosphere wettability on microbial biomass, enzyme activities, and localization. Rhizosphere, 7, 35-42.
4. Ahmadi, K., Zarebanadkouki, M., Ahmed, M. A., Ferrarini, A., Kuzyakov, Y., Kostka, S. J., & Carminati, A. (2017). Rhizosphere engineering: Innovative improvement of root environment. Rhizosphere, 3, 176-184.
5. Baliga, V. B., Young, J. R., & Carrillo, M. A. (2019). Evaluation of water retention products to conserve urban water resources in home lawns. Crop, Forage & Turfgrass Management, 5(1), 1-9.
6. Banks, M. L., Kennedy, A. C., Kremer, R. J., & Eivazi, F. (2014). Soil microbial community response to surfactants and herbicides in two soils. Applied Soil Ecology, 74, 12-20.
7. Bauer, S. J., Cavanaugh, M. J., & Horgan, B. P. (2017). Wetting agent influence on putting green surface firmness. International Turfgrass Society Research Journal, 13(1), 624-628.
8. Bigelow, C. A., Powlen, J. S., & Kostka, S. J. (2024). Localized dry spot recovery and water repellency in a sand golf green. In Sandy Soils (pp. 245-253). Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland.
9. Carminati, A., Zarebanadkouki, M., Kroener, E., Ahmed, M. A., & Holz, M. (2016). Biophysical rhizosphere processes affecting root water uptake. Annals of Botany, 118(4), 561-571.
10. Chang, B., Wherley, B., Aitkenhead-Peterson, J., Ojeda, N., Fontanier, C., & Dwyer, P. (2020). Effect of wetting agent on nutrient and water retention and runoff from simulated urban lawns. HortScience, 55(7), 1005-1013.
11. Cisar, J. L., Williams, K. E., Vivas, H. E., & Haydu, J. J. (2000). The occurrence and alleviation by surfactants of soil-water repellency on sand-based turfgrass systems. Journal of Hydrology, 231, 352-358. https://doi.org/10.1016/S00221694(00)00215-2
12. DeBoer, E. J., Richardson, M. D., McCalla, J. H., & Karcher, D. E. (2019). Reducing ultradwarf bermudagrass putting green winter injury with covers and wetting agents. Crop, Forage & Turfgrass Management, 5(1), 1-9.
13. DeBoer, E. J., Karcher, D. E., McCalla, J. H., & Richardson, M. D. (2020). Effect of late‐fall wetting agent application on winter survival of ultradwarf bermudagrass putting greens. Crop, Forage & Turfgrass Management, 6(1), e20035.
14. Dekker, L. W., Oostindie, K., Kostka, S. J., & Ritsema, C. J. (2005). Effects of surfactant treatments on the wettability of a water repellent grass-covered dune sand. Soil Research, 43(3), 383-395. https://doi.org/10.1071/SR04087
15. Dekker, L. W., & Ritsema, C. J. (2000). Wetting patterns and moisture variability in water repellent Dutch soils. Journal of Hydrology, 231, 148-164.
16. Dekker, L. W., Ritsema, C. J., Oostindie, K., Wesseling, J. G., & Geissen, V. (2019). Effects of a soil surfactant on grass performance and soil wetting of a fairway prone to water repellency. Geoderma, 338, 481-492.
17. Fidanza, M. A., Cisar, J. L., Kostka, S. J., Gregos, J. S., Schlossberg, M. J., & Franklin, M. (2007). Preliminary investigation of soil chemical and physical properties associated with type‐I fairy ring symptoms in turfgrass. Hydrological Processes, 21(17), 2285-2290.
18. Fidanza, M., Kostka, S., & Bigelow, C. (2020). Communication of soil water repellency causes, problems, and solutions of intensively managed amenity turf from 2000 to 2020. Journal of Hydrology and Hydromechanics, 68(4), 306-312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2020.02.004
19. Fidanza, M., Bigelow, C., Kostka, S., Ervin, E., Gaussoin, R., Rossi, F., Cisar, J., Dinelli, F. D., Pope, J., & Steffel, J. (2023). Advances in biostimulants in turfgrass. In M. Fidanza (Ed.), Achieving sustainable turfgrass management (pp. 469-504). Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing.
20. Gelernter, W. D., Stowell, L. J., Johnson, M. E., Brown, C. D., & Beditz, J. F. (2015). Documenting trends in water use and conservation practices on US golf courses. Crop, Forage & Turfgrass Management, 1(1), 1-10. https://doi. org/10.2134/cftm2014.0003.
21. Hutchens, W. J., Gannon, T. W., Shew, H. D., Ahmed, K. A., & Kerns, J. P. (2020). Soil surfactants influence fungicide movement in United States Golf Association putting green soil. Agronomy Journal, 49(2), 450-459.
22. Hutchens, W. J., Carr, T. Q., Patton, A. J., Bigelow, C. A., DeBoer, E. J., Goatley, J. M., & Xiang, M. (2024). Management strategies for preventing and recovering from bermudagrass winterkill. Crop, Forage & Turfgrass Management, 10(2), e20302.
23. Kostka, S. J. (2000). Amelioration of water repellency in highly managed soils and the enhancement of turfgrass performance through the systematic application of surfactants. Journal of Hydrology, 231, 359-368. https://doi.org/10.1016/ S0022-1694(00)00216-4
24. Kostka, S. J., Cisar, J. L., Mitra, S., Park, D. M., Ritsema, C. J., Dekker, L. W., & Franklin, M. A. (2007). Irrigation efficiency. Soil surfactants can save water and help maintain turfgrass quality. Golf Course Industry, 2007, 91-95.
25. Kostka, S., & Fidanza, M. (2018). The quagmire that is soil surfactants in golf and sports turf management. In ASA, CSSA and SSSA International Annual Meetings (p. 113267). Agronomy Abstracts
26. Kostka, S., & Fidanza, M. (2019). Soil surfactant usage based on solid science. Golf Course Industry. Retrieved from https://www.golfcourseindustry.com/ article/soil-surfactant-research-guidance/
27. Larsbo, M., Aamlid, T. S., Persson, L., & Jarvis, N. (2008). Fungicide leaching from golf greens: Effects of root zone composition and surfactant use. Journal of Environmental Quality, 37(4), 1527-1535.
28. Michael, D. J., & Kreuser, W. C. (2020). Sand topdressing and protective covers impact creeping bentgrass crown moisture during winter. Agronomy Journal, 112(2), 1452-1461.
29. Mitra, S., Vis, E., Kumar, R., Plumb, R., & Fam, M. (2006). Wetting agent and cultural practices increase infiltration and reduce runoff losses of irrigation water. Biologia, 61(19), S353-S357.
30. Nolan, G., & Fidanza, M. (2024). Evaluation of two soil surfactants for soil water management of creeping bentgrass on a wettable clay loam rootzone during an imposed dry-down period. Journal of Environmental Horticulture, 42(1), 40-45.
31. O’Brien, D., Fidanza, M., Kostka, S., & Richardson, M. (2023). Penetrants vs. retainers: Understanding wetting agent claims and the science behind them. USGA Green Section Record, 61(10). Retrieved from https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/course-care/green-section-record/61/issue-10/penetrantsvs—retainers—understanding-wetting-agent-claims-and.html
32. O’Brien, D., Richardson, M., Kostka, S., & Karcher, D. (2024, April). Examining the structure-function relationship of block copolymer soil surfactants in sandbased putting greens. In 42nd Symposium on Pesticide Formulation and Delivery Systems: Building the Future of Agrochemicals for 2030 and Beyond (pp. 61-80). ASTM International.
33. Park, D. M., Cisar, J. L., McDermitt, D. K., Williams, K. E., Haydu, J. J., & Miller, W. P. (2005). Using red and infrared reflectance and visual observation to monitor turf quality and water stress in surfactant-treated bermudagrass under reduced irrigation.
34. Schiavon, M., & Serena, M. (2023). Advances in irrigation and water management of turfgrass. In M. Fidanza (Ed.), Achieving sustainable turfgrass management (pp. 157-196). Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing.
35. Soldat, D. J., Lowery, B., & Kussow, W. R. (2010). Surfactants increase uniformity of soil water content and reduce water repellency on sand-based golf putting greens. Soil Science, 175(3), 111-117.
36. Whitlark, B. (2021). Five proven methods to improve moisture uniformity. USGA Green Section Record, 59(12). Retrieved from https://www.usga.org/ content/usga/home-page/course-care/green-section-record/59/12/five-provenmethods-to-improve-moisture-uniformity.html
37. Wilkinson, J. F., & Miller, R. H. (1978). Investigation and treatment of localized dry spots on sand golf greens. Agronomy Journal, 70(2), 299-304. https://doi. org/10.2134/agronj1978.00021962007000020013x
38. Xiang, M., Schiavon, M., Orlinski, P., Forconi, A., & Baird, J. H. (2021). Identification of wetting agents for water conservation on deficit‐irrigated hybrid bermudagrass fairways. Agronomy Journal, 113(5), 3846-3856.
39. Zontek, S. J., & Kostka, S. J. (2012). Understanding the different wetting agent chemistries. Green Section Record, 50(15), 1-6.
Better Built. Quality Results. Period.
1. What is Matrix?
• Reinforced product grown at bottom of sand based profile
• Sprigged field to insure highest percolation rates
• Ready to Play product
2. Where is it used?
• High demand athletic fields: football, soccer, baseball, softball, and rugby.
• High traffic areas: Horsetracks, goalmouths, and tournament crosswalks.
BEACON RETURNS IN 2025
CONNECTING THE TURFGRASS INDUSTRY’S FUTURE
Following the success of its 2024 debut, the BEACON program is returning this fall! Designed to connect emerging professionals with leaders across the turfgrass industry, BEACON brought together students and employers from nationally ranked golf courses, leading agrochemical companies, and other key sectors in its inaugural year.
We’re excited to announce that BEACON 2025 will take place October 14–15 in Knoxville, Tennessee. Mark your calendars. This year promises to be even bigger and better. Additional details will be shared later this summer.
For questions, please contact Dr. Becky Bowling at rgrubbs5@utk.edu.
In the meantime, you can read more about last year’s event: https://www.turfnet.com/news.html/uts-beaconprogram-connects-dots-between-students-employers-university-research-r2051/
THE TURF SPECIALIST’S SECRET WEAPON.
A new era for golf and sports turf, the Snake S3 doesn’t just continue the legacy of the Snake Series, it perfects it!
Key features:
› Zero Daily Maintenance: Titan roller bearing system and maintenance-free wheel hubs eliminate daily greasing.
› Enhanced Usability: New height adjustment collars, stand-on covers, and removable blade beams for improved operation and easier servicing.
When downtime is not an option, save money on equipment that lasts. Scan here FIND OUT MORE!
› Proven Cutting System: Tested by the Sports Turf Institute of New Zealand, delivering a finish comparable to reel mowers.
› Industry-Leading Warranty: Backed by Trimax’s comprehensive 3-year warranty including the Titan bearing system.
JUNE
Turfgrass Tuesday:
You’re looking at five fields in the MLS with Latitude 36, and they’re probably all towards the top every year in quality, playability, and coverage. You never see these fields beat up. I think just overall in this league, Latitude is a very proven grass.”
—ADAM PORTENIER, GROUNDSKEEPER, NASHVILLE SC
VISIT LATITUDE36BERMUDA.COM When performance matters, Tennessee turns to Latitude 36 ® Bermudagrass. The top field managers in the state have chosen Latitude because it’s turf that’s engineered for elite play.
MICROWAVE RADIOMETRY
As IRRIGATION GOLF COURSES A NEW TOOL PRECISION ON FOR
By Madan Sapkota, Chase M. Straw, Weston W. Floyd, and Elia Scudiero
Introducing Microwave Radiometry
global demand for freshwater intensifies and the environmental impact of water use becomes more apparent, golf course superintendents face increasing pressure to manage water resources more efficiently. Conventional irrigation scheduling methods may result in overwatering or underwatering, leading to water waste and negatively affecting turfgrass health and playability. Precision irrigation has emerged as an advanced approach that applies water precisely where and when it is needed, using technologies that monitor soil moisture and optimize irrigation practices.
Accurate soil moisture data are crucial for precision irrigation, as they provide real-time information necessary for refining irrigation schedules, minimizing water waste, and maintaining healthy turfgrass. However, current sensor technologies face challenges in covering large areas like golf course fairways. While traditional methods, such as gravimetric techniques, are accurate, they are also labor-intensive and impractical for large-scale use. Time domain reflectometry (TDR) sensors, commonly used by superintendents in the United States, provide real-time data with less labor but are limited to point-specific measurements, making them less efficient for extensive areas. To overcome these limitations, new solutions are needed to improve the accuracy and reliability of soil moisture measurements over large areas, ultimately enhancing water conservation and promoting healthier turfgrass.
To address the limitations of current soil moisture sensing technologies, microwave sensing emerges as a promising solution for large-scale, accurate soil moisture measurement on golf courses. Microwave sensing can be categorized into active and passive methods. Active microwave sensing, such as synthetic aperture radar (SAR), involves emitting microwave signals to the ground and measuring the reflected signals. This method is effective for mapping surface features but can be complex and resource-intensive. In contrast, passive microwave sensing, or microwave radiometry, measures the natural microwave emissions from the surface. This passive approach is particularly effective for assessing soil moisture content, as it directly responds to the water present in the soil.
Microwave Radiometry in Golf Course Management
Microwave radiometry is emerging as a promising technology for soil moisture measurement, with significant potential for largescale applications in golf course management. An example of this technology is the Portable L-Band Radiometer (PoLRa), commercially known as turfRad (TerraRad Tech AG, Zurich, Switzerland). Although PoLRa represents a new tool for golf course superintendents, the principles of microwave radiometry could transform how soil moisture is monitored and how high-resolution soil moisture maps are created.
A B
Figure 1. a) Portable L-band Radiometer (PoLRa, i.e., turfRad) sensor mounted on a fairway mower at the golf course.
b) Time domain reflectometry (TDR) measurements (ground truth data) from the data collection conducted on August 14, 2023.
Microwave radiometry detects natural microwave emissions from the surface, allowing for soil moisture measurement up to four inches below the surface. This non-invasive method enables rapid data collection over large areas, making it ideal for managing extensive golf course fairways, where traditional soil moisture-sensing methods are often labor-intensive or limited. The radiometer sensor can be mounted on a mower or strapped to the bed of a utility vehicle, measuring soil moisture about 14 times per second while traveling up to 10 mph. Sensors can also be arranged in an array for broader coverage.
Although microwave radiometry is still relatively new and has not undergone extensive testing in golf course management, it has already been implemented at several golf courses in the United States. Technologies like PoLRa show promise but are still in the early stages of exploration. For precision irrigation, any geospatial sensor technology, including PoLRa, must be rigorously evaluated by assessing soil moisture measurement accuracy and improving soil moisture mapping.
The preliminary research discussed in the next section focuses on the first step: enhancing measurement accuracy through calibration techniques. Calibration involves adjusting the sensor readings to match those from reliable reference measurements, such as those obtained from TDR sensors, to ensure the data collected are accurate and reliable. Factors influencing accuracy include soil moisture content, leaf water levels, brightness temperature (how much microwave radiation is reflected back to the sensor),
temperature fluctuations, and surface roughness (how smooth or uneven the surface is, affecting the scattering of microwave signals). Different turfgrass species may also affect readings due to variations in leaf water content and surface characteristics. Therefore, site-specific calibrations are essential for ensuring reliable measurements. Significant effort is needed to develop and apply effective calibration techniques to achieve precise and dependable results.
Preliminary Research at Champions Golf Club, Houston, Texas
On August 14, 2023, Texas A&M University researchers conducted a study at Champions Golf Club (Jackrabbit Course) in Houston, Texas, focusing on fairways 2, 6, and 13, which feature ‘Tifway 419’ hybrid bermudagrass in sandy loam soil. Two methods to measure soil moisture were used: the PoLRa (turfRad) microwave radiometer and handheld TDR 350 sensors (FieldScout TDR 350 Soil Moisture Meter, Spectrum Technologies, Inc., Plainfield, IL, USA). The PoLRa was mounted on a fairway mower about one meter above the ground (Figure 1a) and driven at speeds of 3.5-4.5 mph. The mower made three passes per fairway—two near the edges and one down the center—while data were collected at twelve randomly chosen points per fairway. After each pass, the points were flagged and exact times were recorded using the ‘Unix Time’ app.
Previous research has shown strong correlations between TDR and gravimetric soil moisture measurements, especially in coarse, non-conductive soils. Since TDR is practical for golf course superintendents, it provides reliable data for calibrating the PoLRa sensor. After using PoLRa to take measurements, soil moisture readings were collected at marked points using handheld TDR sensors at depths of 1.5, 3.0, and 4.8 inches (Figure 1b). The PoLRa data were then matched with the TDR readings based on the recorded times to ensure accurate comparisons.
For calibration, we used ANCOVA regression, a statistical method that helps understand the relationship between different variables while controlling for other factors. In this method, TDR readings were treated as the dependent variable (the outcome we are measuring), and the brightness temperature from PoLRa’s vertical polarization was the independent variable (the factor we are testing to see its effect). This method enabled more accurate estimation of soil moisture levels. We assessed the
model’s performance using metrics such as R², which indicates how well the model explains the variation in soil moisture, and mean absolute error (MAE), which shows the average size of the prediction errors.
Our initial calibration using PoLRa’s off-the-shelf (i.e., factory) settings showed an R² value of 0.60 (P < 0.01) and MAE of 0.06 (Figure 2a), indicating that 60% of the variability in soil moisture readings could be explained by PoLRa data. While promising, these results highlighted the need for further refinement to improve accuracy. Using an advanced ANCOVA calibration approach that incorporated additional factors such as brightness temperature, the model’s performance significantly improved. The R² value increased to 0.78 (P < 0.01) (Figure 2b), explaining 78% of the variability in soil moisture, and the MAE was reduced to 0.03. These results demonstrate the effectiveness of advanced calibration techniques in enhancing the accuracy of PoLRa’s soil moisture measurements.
b) A comparison of observed vs. estimated VWC using the ANCOVA regression approach.
Figure 2. a) The relationship between off-the-shelf PoLRa (turfRad) volumetric water content (VWC) and ground truth time domain reflectometry (TDR) measurements from three golf course fairways during a survey at Champions Golf Club (Jackrabbit Course) in Houston, Texas.
FEATURE
Future Direction for Accuracy and Reliability
The improved soil moisture measurement accuracy from using ANCOVA to calibrate microwave radiometry technology highlights its potential to improve golf course irrigation. While effective, ANCOVA requires further refinement. Future research should explore additional factors, such as different soil types, turfgrass species and varieties, management practices, and various climatic environments. Considering temporal factors, including seasonal variations, will also help enhance the model’s year-round accuracy.
Fine-Tuning Microwave Radiometry and Improving Soil Moisture Mapping
After improving soil moisture measurement accuracy, the next step in optimizing precision irrigation is enhancing soil moisture mapping across large areas like fairways. These maps help visualize soil moisture variability, as shown in Figure 3, and hold great potential for precision irrigation. By integrating PoLRa, which utilizes both microwave radiometry and GPS for georeferencing soil moisture data, with digital job board technology, real-time georeferencing of soil moisture readings can be achieved as a PoLRa moves across fairways. The resulting maps can reveal patterns of soil moisture variability, which can be more effectively addressed once the soil moisture calibrations are fully applied (Figure 3a and 3b).
Conclusions
Microwave radiometry holds potential to transform precision irrigation on golf courses. Its ability to provide accurate, large-scale soil moisture measurements could revolutionize water management for superintendents. By overcoming the limitations of current sensors and offering a non-invasive, efficient method for real-time data collection, microwave
Figure 3. a) Soil moisture maps generated by integrating PoLRa (turfRad) data with digital job board (ASB taskTracker) for fairway 2 and 6 (a and b, respectively) at Champions Golf Club (Jackrabbit Course) in Houston, Texas, during a survey on August 14, 2023.
radiometry could become essential in modern golf course management. Although further research is needed to improve accuracy and reliability, the final step to ease the implementation of precision irrigation is integrating this technology with irrigation systems. This integration could reduce the need for manual adjustments of irrigation schedules by allowing the system to recommend adjustments based on soil moisture and possibly other turfgrass or soil data. Superintendents would then be able to simply approve or adjust these recommendations as needed. This approach could ultimately lead to more sustainable water use, improved turfgrass health, and enhanced overall golf course quality.
M. Sapkota, C.M. Straw, and W.W. Floyd
Department of Soil and Crop Sciences
Texas A&M University 3100 F and B Rd College Station, TX 77845
E. Scudiero
University of California Riverside West Big Spring Rd Riverside, CA 92507
Acknowledgement
The authors gratefully acknowledge Chris Ortmeier, Director of Agronomy at Champions Golf Club, and Cliff Morris, Superintendent of the Jackrabbit Course, for providing space for our research. We are also thankful to the United States Golf Association and the South Texas Golf Course Superintendents Association for their financial support. Special thanks to Dr. Derek Houtz, Founder and CEO of TerraRad Tech AG, for his technical support with the PoLRa sensor
This article was originally published in Pennsylvania Turfgrass, Spring 2025 and is reprinted with permission.
The Business
PRICE YOUR SERVICES FOR PROFIT HOW TO
By Kristina Kelly
When it comes to running a turfgrass business, your work is rooted in results. Healthy lawns, properly installed sod, and satisfied customers are the visible signs of success. And behind every vibrant blade of grass is a business owner making daily decisions that impact their bottom line. One of the most important? Pricing.
Setting the right price for your services can feel like trying to hit a moving target. Charge too little, and you’re leaving money on the table or risking your ability to sustain operations. Charge too much, and you might struggle to stay competitive in your market. Whether you’re a seasoned professional or new to the industry, understanding how to price your services for profit is key to longterm stability and growth.
Know Your True Costs
Before setting any price, you need to understand what it actually costs to deliver your services. That means looking beyond just materials and labor. Your total cost should include direct and indirect expenses, such as:
• Labor wages, including payroll taxes and workers’ compensation
• Equipment maintenance, fuel, and depreciation
• Material costs, like sod, seed, fertilizer, and irrigation supplies
• Insurance, licenses, and permits
• Office overhead, marketing, and administrative costs
If you’re only calculating based on materials and hourly labor, you may be unintentionally operating at a loss. Developing a simple spreadsheet or using job-costing software can help you track these figures and understand your cost per service. This step lays the foundation for profitable pricing.
Factor in Your Desired Profit Margin
Once you know your costs, it’s time to add your profit margin. This isn’t greedy. It’s necessary. Profit allows you to reinvest in your business, build a financial cushion, and pay yourself a fair wage as the owner. A healthy net profit margin in service industries typically ranges from 10 to 20 percent, though it may vary based on your service mix and market.
For example, if it costs you $2,000 to complete a sod installation job, and you want a 20 percent profit margin, your price should be at least $2,500. Many business owners make the mistake of only charging enough to cover costs, which can lead to financial stress or burnout down the road.
from start we’ve got you covered!
At Corbin Turf, we take pride in handling your order every step of the way. With our own fleet of trucks and a dedicated trucking team, we ensure your delivery is seamless, on time, and accompanied by friendly faces and helping hands
Let us take care of you—from order to delivery
Understand the Market (But Don’t Let It Dictate Your Value)
Knowing what competitors charge is important, but it shouldn’t be your only reference point. Pricing strictly to match or undercut the competition can turn into a race to the bottom. Instead, use market research to understand the range of prices in your area, and then position yourself based on the value you provide.
If your work is high quality, your team is reliable, and you offer responsive customer service, you don’t need to be the cheapest option. Instead, you can charge what you’re worth and attract customers who recognize and value professionalism. That might mean saying no to some price-sensitive clients, but it will help you build a stronger, more sustainable client base in the long run.
Avoid the Temptation of Flat-Rate Guesswork
It can be tempting to offer flat-rate pricing to simplify your quotes, but this approach can backfire if it’s not backed by data. Every job is different, and variables like square footage, site conditions, soil prep, and access points can dramatically affect your costs. If you rely on gut instinct or round numbers to quote jobs, you may end up underbidding without realizing it.
Instead, develop a pricing model based on per-square-foot or per-hour rates that can be customized to each job. This approach also helps you educate your clients and show transparency in your pricing.
Build in a Buffer for Risk and Rework
Not every job goes according to plan. Weather delays, equipment breakdowns, and last-minute client changes can eat into your profitability. When calculating your price, include a small buffer to account for the unexpected. This might be an extra percentage added to your labor costs or a built-in contingency fee.
Additionally, consider how you’ll handle rework or warranty issues. If you offer a guarantee on sod establishment or turf health, make sure that’s reflected in your pricing structure. It’s better to plan for these scenarios than to absorb the cost later.
Review and Adjust Regularly
Your pricing shouldn’t be static. Costs increase over time, and so should your rates. Review your pricing annually (or more frequently if you experience major changes in labor or material costs).
Communicate price increases clearly and professionally with clients and reinforce the value they receive. Most customers understand that inflation and industry dynamics affect pricing, especially if they trust the quality of your work.
Regular reviews can also help you identify services that may no longer be profitable, or spot opportunities to package offerings in a way that increases revenue.
Package and Upsell Strategically
One way to boost profitability is by offering bundled services or strategic upsells. For example, if you’re installing sod, you could offer irrigation system checks, soil testing, or seasonal fertilization packages. These added services not only increase the overall value of a job, but they also help position your business as a comprehensive turf solution provider.
Clients often appreciate a “one-stop shop” approach, especially when it simplifies their to-do list and increases the success of their lawn or landscape investment.
Know When to Walk Away
Finally, remember that not every job is the right fit. If a prospective client pressures you to lower your price or match a competitor’s rate without understanding the difference in service quality, it may be best to politely walk away. Saying no to low-margin work frees up your time and resources for jobs that are actually profitable.
It takes confidence and discipline, but walking away from the wrong clients is just as important to your bottom line as securing the right ones.
Pricing Done Right
Pricing is one of the most important decisions you make as a turfgrass professional and business owner. It requires a clear understanding of your costs, an honest evaluation of your value, and the willingness to protect your profit margins. When done right, pricing becomes more than a number on a quote—it becomes a reflection of your professionalism and the foundation of a thriving business.
By taking a thoughtful, data-driven approach to pricing, you’ll not only ensure the health of your business but also earn the trust and loyalty of clients who see the value in what you do.
This article was originally published in North Carolina Turfgrass, May/June 2025 and is reprinted with permission.
José Javier Vargas Almodóvar Research Associate II Turf & Ornamental
Weed Science
The University of Tennessee 2431 Joe Johnson Drive 252 Ellington Plant Sci. Bldg. Knoxville, TN 37996 (865) 974-7379 jvargas@utk.edu tnturfgrassweeds.org @UTweedwhisperer
Greg Breeden Extension Specialist,
The University of Tennessee 2431 Center Drive 252 Ellington Plant Sci. Bldg. Knoxville, TN 37996-4561 (865) 974-7208 gbreeden@utk.edu tnturfgrassweeds.org @gbreeden1
THE TURFGRASS TEAM AT THE UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE, KNOXVILLE
Jim Brosnan, Ph.D. Professor,
The University of Tennessee Director – UT Weed Diagnostics Center 112 Plant Biotechnology Bldg. 2505 EJ Chapman Drive. Knoxville, TN 37996 Office: (865) 974-8603 tnturfgrassweeds.org weeddiagnostics.org mobileweedmanual.com @UTturfweeds
Kyley Dickson, Ph.D. Associate Director, Center for Athletic Field Safety Turfgrass Management & Physiology (865) 974-6730 kdickso1@utk.edu @DicksonTurf
Midhula Gireesh, Ph.D. Assistant Professor and Extension Specialist Department of Entomology and Plant Pathology
The University of Tennessee UT Soil, Plant and Pest Center 5201 Marchant Drive Nashville, TN 37211 mgireesh@utk.edu (615) 835-4571
Brandon Horvath, Ph.D. Associate Professor, Turfgrass Science
The University of Tennessee 252 Ellington Plant Sci. Bldg. 2431 Joe Johnson Drive Knoxville, TN 37996 (865) 974-2975
bhorvath@utk.edu turf.utk.edu @UTturfpath
Becky Bowling, Ph.D. Assistant Professor and Turfgrass Extension Specialist
The University of Tennessee 112 Plant Biotechnology Bldg. 2505 E.J. Chapman Dr. Knoxville, TN 37919 (865) 974-2595 Rgrubbs5@utk.edu @TNTurfWoman
John Sorochan, Ph.D. Professor, Turfgrass Science
The University of Tennessee 2431 Joe Johnson Drive 363 Ellington Plant Sci. Bldg. Knoxville, TN 37996-4561 (865) 974-7324 sorochan@utk.edu turf.utk.edu @sorochan
Experience Ma�ers
John Stier, Ph.D. Associate Dean
The University of Tennessee 2621 Morgan Circle 126 Morgan Hall Knoxville, TN 37996-4561 (865) 974-7493 jstier1@utk.edu turf.utk.edu @Drjohnstier
Nar B. Ranabhat, Ph.D. Assistant Professor and Extension Plant Pathologist Department of Entomology and Plant Pathology
University of Tennessee UT Soil, Plant and Pest Center 5201 Marchant Drive, Nashville, TN, 37211 (615) 835-4572
nranabhat@utk.edu @UTplantPathoDoc
THE H-2B VISA PROGRAM IN TENNESSEE
GENERAL OVERVIEW
By Margarita Velandia, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics
Becky Grubbs Bowling, Department of Plant Sciences
Thomas Ayers, Tennessee State Monitor Advocate, Department of Labor & Workforce Development
Jane Chadwell, GAP Connections
Amy Rochkes, GAP Connections
This article aims to provide a general overview of the H-2B visa program in Tennessee. Specifically, we address the use of the program in terms of certified workers, the geographic distribution of these workers, the certification process, businesses or firms that could help with the certification process and program cost considerations for employers of H-2B workers. This article is designed to provide an overview and should not be taken as a “How To” instructional document.
What is the H-2B Visa Program?
The H-2B temporary non-agricultural visa program is a program that allows U.S. employers experiencing a shortage of domestic workers to fill seasonal or temporary non-agricultural jobs with foreign nonimmigrant workers. Before issuing an H-2B certification to an employer, the U.S. Department of Labor determines that 1) there are no qualified and available U.S. workers that could perform the temporary labor or services for which the employer is requesting foreign workers, and 2) that employing H-2B workers will not negatively affect the wage and working conditions of U.S. workers employed in similar positions (U.S. Department of Labor, 2024a).
This program is unique from the H-2A visa program. The H-2A visa program allows U.S. agricultural employers experiencing a shortage of domestic workers to fill seasonal or temporary jobs with foreign nonimmigrant workers for agricultural work that is seasonal or temporary in nature (e.g., planting or harvesting crops). You can learn more about the H-2A visa program by reading “The H-2A Visa Program in Tennessee: General Overview,” available at tiny.utk.edu/2bK7F
Requirements for H-2B Jobs
The job offered by the employer should be:
• Non-agricultural 1
• Full-time (i.e., 35 or more hours per week)
• Temporary (i.e., nine months or less, with the exception of one-time occurrences that could last up to three years). Per the U.S. Department of Labor (2024a), this may include,
- A one-time occurrence
- Seasonal need
- Peak-load need
- Intermittent need
To qualify, employers need to prove that the job offered qualifies for the program. For example, they need to prove that unique events forced them to fill a job that otherwise would be permanent for a short period of time with a temporary worker or that their labor needs are tied to a season or are short-term.
The H-2B Cap and the Lottery System
There is a numerical limit or cap on the number of non-US citizens who might receive an H-2B visa during each fiscal year. The statutory cap for H-2B visa holders is 66,000. Half of those visas (33,000) are allocated in the first half of the fiscal year (October 1 to March 31), and the rest are allocated in the second half of the fiscal year (April 1 to September 30). If there are unused visas from the first half of the year, those will be allocated to workers in the second half of the fiscal year. Unused H-2B visas do not carry over from one fiscal year to the next (U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service, 2024).
Workers exempt from the cap include:
• Workers in the U.S. under the H-2B visa status who extended their stay or changed their employment or conditions of employment.
1 Non-agricultural work includes everything that is not related to maintaining crops and tending livestock under the supervision of farmers, ranchers, and other agricultural managers. For examples of jobs traditionally performed by agricultural workers, go to tiny.utk.edu/luSrM.
• Roe processors, fish roe technicians, supervisors of fish roe processing or workers performing labor or services in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands or Guam until December 31, 2029 (U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service, 2024).
Over time, the demand for H-2B workers by U.S. employers has exceeded the supply of H-2B visas available for potential workers. Therefore, in recent years, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has released additional visas beyond the statutory 66,000 cap to address labor shortages. These additional visas are made available on a fiscal year basis. Therefore, these additional visas do not represent a permanent increase in the statutory 66,000 visa cap. For example, in FY 2025, an additional 64,716 visas were made available, for a total of 130,716 H-2B visas (66,000 visa cap + 64,716 additional visas). Nonetheless, there are restrictions on the allocation of those supplemental visas. For example, in FY 2024, 44,716 of the 64,716 additional visas were reserved for returning workers or those who received an H-2B visa in the last three fiscal years (U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service, 2024).
Due to the high demand for H-2B visas, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) often uses a lottery system to allocate these visas when the number of applications exceeds the available visas. Employers can submit their petitions for H-2B workers up to 120 days before the job’s start date. When the number of petitions exceeds the number of available visas, the USCIS announces the use of a lottery for the allocation of visas. In the lottery, the USCIS randomly selects petitions to fill the visa quota for that period. Specifically, H-2B applications requesting workers for the earliest date that were filed during the first three days of the filing period are given a random number for processing. The applications are then sorted in ascending order based on the random number assigned to each application.
Using this system, applications are selected until the number of workers requested reaches the semi-annual cap. The U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Foreign Labor Certification (OFLC), assigns applications to National Processing Centers (NPC) analysts. Once all applications have been received and processed, applicants will receive a Notice of Acceptance or Notice of Deficiency (Selection Procedures, 2019). Those applications that are not selected in the lottery process will have their petitions returned or waitlisted for future visa availability (if applicable).
H-2B Workers in the US and Tennessee
In the U.S., the number of certified temporary jobs under the H2B visa program has increased by about 41 percent since FY 2019, going from over 150,000 certified temporary jobs to 211,666 in FY 2023 (U.S. Department of Labor, 2024b).
In Tennessee, the U.S. Department of Labor certified 5,130 temporary jobs with workstations in Tennessee under the H-2B visa program in FY 2023 (U.S. Department of Labor, 2024b). An average of 85 percent of the total workers requested were certified between FYs 2019 and 2023. In FY 2023, a total of 2,410 certified jobs were requested by employers who provided a
Tennessee address, and 2,720 were requested by employers who listed an addressee outside of Tennessee (see Figure 1). The number of H-2B certified workers with workstations in Tennessee increased by about 120 percent between FYs 2019 and 2023. The number of certified workers with workstations in Tennessee under the H-2B program requested by Tennessee employers increased by about 128 percent between FYs 2019 and 2023 from 1,058 to 2,410 workers. An average of 82 percent of the workers requested by Tennessee employers were certified between FYs 2019 and 2023, while an average of 88 percent of the workers requested by non-Tennessee employers were certified during this same period.
Occupations
In FY 2023, the top five occupations under the H-2B visa program in the U.S. were landscaping and groundskeeping, maids and housekeeping, forest and conservation workers, amusement and recreation attendants, and meat, poultry, and fish cutters and trimmers (U.S. Department of Labor, 2023).
Under the Standard Occupation Classification, about 42 percent of the certified workers with workstations in Tennessee requested by Tennessee employers in FY 2023 were classified as landscaping and groundskeeping workers (Table 1). According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2023), workers under this classification:
Figure 1. Number of H-2B certified jobs in TN between FYs 2019 and 2023.
Source: U.S. Department of Labor and authors’ calculations
“Landscape or maintain grounds of property using hand or power tools or equipment. Workers typically perform a variety of tasks, which may include any combination of the following: sod laying, mowing, trimming, planting, watering, fertilizing, digging, raking, sprinkler installation, and installation of mortarless segmental concrete masonry wall units. Excludes “Farmworkers and Laborers, Crop, Nursery, and Greenhouse” (45-2092).”
Other occupations employed in Tennessee using the H-2B program include maids and housekeeping cleaners; construction laborers; stocker and order fillers; restaurant cooks; pesticide handlers, sprayers, and applicators; janitors and cleaners; highway maintenance workers, cement masons and concrete finishers; and food preparation workers. Table 1 shows the top five occupations in terms of the number of H-2B certified workers requested by Tennessee employers.
Geographic Distribution Across Tennessee Counties
Figure 2 shows that in FY 2023, the H-2B certified workers in Tennessee were concentrated in five counties: Davidson, Madison, Rhea, Sevier and Shelby. Sevier County had the highest
percentage of H-2B certified workers (26 percent of total certified workers or 624 workers). All these workers were performing jobs for the service industry, with the majority of them being classified in the maids and housekeeping cleaners category, as well as in the food industry job categories (e.g., cooks, food, and fast food and counter workers). Davidson and Rhea counties had the highest percentage of H-2B workers in the landscaping and groundskeeping category (34 percent and 10 percent, respectively). Other counties with a high percentage of H-2B workers in the landscaping and groundskeeping category include Madison, Sumner, Shelby, Bedford, Rutherford and Williamson counties.
Financial Considerations
Requirements
Employers of H-2B workers must pay at least the wage rate specified in the job order. This wage rate should be at least the highest rate between the prevailing wage rate obtained from the Employment and Training Administration (ETA) and the minimum wage rate set at the federal, state or local levels, whichever is higher (U.S. Department of Labor, 2024c).
Table 1. Top five occupations in terms of the number of H-2B certified workers requested by TN employers in 2023.
Figure 2. Number of H-2B certified workers employed by TN businesses by county in FY 2023.
Source: U.S. Department of Labor (2024)
The prevailing wage rate is the average wage rate paid to workers in similar employment in a specific occupation in the area of intended employment (U.S. Department of Labor, 2024d). Other federal wage requirements apply to H-2B workers such as overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (U.S. Department of Labor, 2024c).
When submitting the ETA-9142B form, H-2B Application for Temporary Employment Certification2, an employer should specify the rate to be paid to workers. Some employers specify this rate as a range, specifying the minimum and maximum wage rates to be paid to employees. For example, in FY 2023, Tennessee employers who submitted ETA-9142B forms to employ H-2B workers in Tennessee workstations in the landscaping and groundskeeping worker category specified an average hourly wage rate between $15.27 and $15.63. The specified hourly overtime rate was between $22.90 and $23.44.
The employer could pay employees using a method other than an hourly wage rate, such as commissions, bonuses and piece rates. Regardless of the payment method, employers should guarantee that the employee is earning the wage rate as specified in the job order. For instance, if the employer is using a method different from the hourly wage rate to pay an employee and an employee gets lower earnings than the specified offered wage in a workweek, the employer should supplement the pay to guarantee the offered wage (U.S. Department of Labor, 2024c).
Although deductions required by law (e.g., taxes payable by workers that are required to be held by employers) from workers’ paychecks are allowed, other deductions not required by law must be specified in the job order. Some of the authorized deductions include deductions for the reasonable cost of board, lodging and furnished facilities for employee use and other deductions that the employee has previously authorized, such as union dues. None of those deductions should be related to third-party payments associated with recruitment, visa, work certification or any other
expenses related to worker recruitment. Those expenses are the employers’ responsibility (U.S. Department of Labor, 2024e).
More information about wage requirements, deductions, and prohibited fees can be found at tiny.utk.edu/7InG4 and tiny.utk. edu/7pBzQ
“Free and Clear” Payment
Wages are only considered to be paid by the employer in full if they are paid unconditionally. Expenses incurred by the employee to complete the work required (i.e., purchase of tools or supplies) are legally viewed as a wage deduction. Employers must provide all materials and resources necessary for the employee to complete the work.
Under the Fair Labor Standards Act, “The wage requirements of the Act will not be met where the employee “kicks-back” directly or indirectly to the employer or to another person for the employer’s benefit the whole or part of the wage delivered to the employee.” 3
Employer Costs
Costs associated with using the H-2B visa program vary depending on the number of workers and the agency or firm the employer is working with. In Table 2, we present some fees associated with the H-2B visa process that would have to be covered by the employer requesting the workers, and that would not vary by employer.
For some employers using the program, there might be an agency fee in the form of an annual membership fee that will cover various costs, including worker petition filing fees, visa application consulate fees, assistance during the application process and access to legal counsel. We interviewed two Tennessee employers using the H-2B visa program to gather information about the
worker petition filing fee I-129 (to USCIS)
Nonimmigrant worker petition filing fee I-129 (to USCIS) additional fees
H-2B visa application consulate fee
2 tiny.utk.edu/mH6ko
3 tiny.utk.edu/z3BMl a tiny.utk.edu/1vlRw b tiny.utk.edu/QqjMC
$1,080/application if filing a petition with a named worker, $540/ application if filing as a small employer or nonprofit, $580/ application if filing a petition with unnamed workers, or $460/ application if filing as a small employer with unnamed workers a
Additional fees include a fraud prevention and detection fee ($150) and an asylum program fee, which is $300 if you are filing as a small employer; otherwise, you will have to pay $600 a
$205 per worker b
Nonimmigrant
Table 2. Example of fees associated with the H-2B visa program, FY 2025.
costs associated with using this program. They indicated their annual agency fee was between $2,200 and $5,500.
The employer covers workers’ inbound and outbound transportation and subsistence costs while traveling. These costs would vary depending on the workers’ place of residence and the mode of transportation. One of the Tennessee employers we interviewed, who employed workers from Mexico, indicated that in FY2023, they paid $600 per worker for inbound (by bus) and outbound (by plane) transportation and paid $15.88 per day for subsistence costs while traveling, which is the minimum allowable subsistence amount per day according to the U.S. Department of Labor (U.S. Department of Labor, 2024f). It was estimated that the total subsistence cost for 12 workers while traveling was $3,500, which is equivalent to $292 per worker. For more information about inbound and outbound transportation expenses, go to tiny.utk.edu/x8Mz5
Although the H-2B visa program does not require employers to provide housing to workers, both employers we interviewed provided housing to their H-2B workers. This is an important consideration given the challenges workers face finding housing once they arrive in the U.S. One of the employers we interviewed provides housing to 12 H-2B workers at no cost. He estimated this cost to be about $20,000 per year. The other employer deducts housing costs from workers’ pay, which is one of the allowable pay deductions under the H2B visa program.
One of the employers mentioned that the lottery process has negative financial implications for the employer. Specifically, he mentioned that the lottery process introduces a variation in time to recover what he considers the fixed costs associated with using the H-2B program. For example, suppose the workers arrive later than expected because of delays associated with the lottery process. In that case, they have a shorter time to recover filing, agency and housing costs through gross revenue H-2B workers help generate.
SPECIALIZING IN:
Although not discussed in this article, employers should investigate costs associated with worker compensation and taxes when considering using the H-2B visa program.
The H-2B Certification Process and Who Can Help?
The U.S. Department of Labor oversees the certification process of all H-2B temporary positions. In Tennessee, 2,991 positions were requested by Tennessee employers, and 2,410 were certified in FY 2023 (U.S. Department of Labor, 2024b). The process of applying to hire H-2B workers involves several steps and requirements:
Step 1: Before filing an H-2B application, and at least 60 days before the determination is needed, an employer should obtain a prevailing wage determination (Forms RTA-9141 and 9165) from the Office of Foreign Labor Certification, National Prevailing Wage Center.
Step 2: Between 90 and 75 days before the workers are needed, an employer should file a job order with the State Workforce Agency and submit an H-2B application (Form ETA-9142B and Appendices) with supporting documents and a copy of the job order filed to the State Workforce Agency to the Chicago National Processing Center.
Step 3: Within 14 days of receipt of the Notice of Acceptance, employers are required to recruit U.S. workers following instructions for how to prepare and when to submit a recruitment report to the Office of Foreign Labor Certification National Processing Center.
Step 4: If temporary labor certification is granted, the Office of Foreign Labor Certification will provide the employer with its final determination notice.
After the final determination notice, the employer will complete an H-2B visa petition with the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Workers will apply for the H-2B visa with the Department of State. Approved workers will travel to the worksite and arrive on the start date with an arrival/departure record.
Employers who are considering employing H-2B workers should review the resources and references provided at the end of this publication, including the U.S. Department of Labor and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service websites, which have detailed information on how and where to apply.
Because the H-2B visa process can be complex and time-consuming, some employers use law firms or agencies to help them complete the processes. Table 3 presents the top five businesses/firms in terms of certified jobs used by Tennessee employers to handle H-2B job certifications in FY 2023.4 Employers should conduct their research before using an attorney or agency to handle the certification process.
Table 3. Agents or attorneys who helped Tennessee employers with the H-2B applications, FY 2023
REFERENCES
Selection Procedures for Reviewing Applications Filed by Employers Seeking Temporary Employment of H–2B Foreign Workers in the United States, 84 Fed. Reg. 7399, (March 4, 2019) (Billing Code 4510-FP-P) tiny.utk.edu/lURDt. Retrieved September 12, 2024.
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2023. Occupational Employment and Wages, May 2023 – 37-3011 Landscaping and Groundskeeping Workers. 2023. Available at tiny. utk.edu/9PfOG. Retrieved April 11, 2024.
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service, 2024. Cap Count for H-2B Nonimmigrants. Available at tiny.utk.edu/aoFDC Retrieved April 15, 2024.
U.S. Department of Labor. 2023. H-2B Temporary Non-Agricultural Program – Selected Statistics, Fiscal Year (FY) 2023. Available at tiny.utk.edu/oL2rB. Retrieved April 10, 2024.
U.S. Department of Labor. 2024a. H-2B Temporary Non-agricultural Program. Available at tiny.utk.edu/wReTO. Retrieved April 10, 2024.
U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration. 2024b. Performance Data. Available at tiny.utk. edu/53UxR. Retrieved April 11, 2024.
U.S. Department of Labor. 2024c. Fact Sheet #78C: Wage Requirements under the H-2B Program. Available at tiny.utk. edu/7InG4. Retrieved April 12, 2024.
U.S. Department of Labor. 2024d. Prevailing Wages. Available at tiny.utk.edu/ ovQVr. Retrieved April 12, 2024.
U.S. Department of Labor. 2024e. Fact Sheet #78D: Deductions and Prohibited Fees under the H-2B Program. Available at tiny.utk.edu/7pBzQ. Retrieved April 15, 2024.
U.S. Department of Labor. 2024f. Allowable Meal Charges and Reimbursement for Daily Subsistence. Available at tiny. utk.edu/vOySx. Retrieved April 15, 2024.
MARKS THE SPOT FOR ALL THINGS TENNESSEE TURF!
If you’re not following all the up-to-the-minute news on X (formerly Twitter), you may be missing out on some great information and opportunities.
From event updates to Job Listings to networking, X is a great way to stay connected.
Aerate and Play Right Away!
Decreased down time, increased revenue.
The surface is very “puttable.”
The dots are sand that is level with the turf.
DryJect® is a high-pressure, water based injection system that blasts holes through the root zone and fractures the soil profile. Plus, it automatically fills holes as it aerates.
DryJect® makes a big difference in playability … right away!
Many Varieties Maintained at .500
MONDAY (AM)—SATURDAY TO ACCOMMODATE YOUR JOB NEEDS
• Backed By Two Decades of Rigorous Testing
• Requires 38% Less Water
• Maintains Quality and Color
• High Traffic Tolerance
• Over 2 Billion sq. ft. Installed
