Virginia Turfgrass Journal - March / April 2015

Warm-Season

Greens in Richmond?

A Review of NTEP Trial Results

Virginia Turfgrass Council / P.O. Box 5989 / Virginia Beach, VA 23471 / ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED

The Pros and Cons of Artificial and Natural Grass Athletic Fields Plus, Highlights from the VTC’s 55th Annual Turf & Landscape Conference & Tradeshow

Journal of the Virginia Turfgrass Council | March/April 2015

21

16 16 Cover Story

Warm-Season Putting Greens in Richmond? A Review of NTEP Trial Results

21 Feature Story

The Pros and Cons of Artificial and Natural Grass Athletic Fields

26 Recent Event

Highlights from the VTC’s 55th Annual Turf & Landscape Conference & Tradeshow

26 Departments 06 President’s Message

from Fred Biggers, CGCS

08 Director’s Corner

from Tom Tracy, Ph.D.

10 Editor’s Perspective

from Mark Vaughn, CGCS

12 VTF Report

from Betty Parker

14 News from the VTC 29 Turfgrass Calendar 30 Index of Advertisers

President’s Message

Fred Biggers, CGCS VTC President

“B

Better in Every Way!

etter in every way!” is the phrase that best describes the 55th Annual VTC Turf and Landscape Conference and Tradeshow. This year’s Conference was a big success, with more than 1,000 attendees (vendors and participants). The tradeshow was improved this year with new record total booths, lunch on both Tuesday and Wednesday, and an upgraded “Putting Green” contest put on by the Virginia Sod Growers and the VTF. Many, many thanks go to all of our dedicated commercial vendors who once again stepped up in record numbers to support the VTC Conference and Tradeshow.

That the Annual Conference and Tradeshow was such a great success was due to the dedicated work of our VTC executive director, Dr. Tom Tracy, and our VTC board of directors and, the hard work creating the conference program by Rick Owens, CGCS, and his Conference Program committee. The Opening Session, which was held on Tuesday morning, was standing room only to hear presentations from Kevin Robinson, CGCS, and John Jefferies from the Pinehurst Resort on their U.S. Open experiences from the summer of 2014. We also heard a fascinating presentation from Dr. Milt Engelke, professor emeritus from Texas A&M, on the expanding usage of zoysiagrass around the U.S. and world.

The VTC board of directors recognized several longtime VTC members for their outstanding contributions to the Virginia turfgrass industry. This year’s VTC Award was given to Brian Vincel, CGCS (Spring Creek Golf Club), who has been the VTC’s treasurer for several years. The R.D. Cake Silver Tray Award went to Steve Smith (Specialty Turf Services) for his outstanding contributions in heading up the VTC Membership committee. His hard work has been evident over the past three years by the VTC’s steady growth in membership. Betty Parker (executive director of the Virginia Turfgrass Foundation) received the VTC President’s Award for her many years of service directing VTF activities. Lastly, Rick Viancour, CGCS (the Golden Horseshoe G.C.), and Marc Petrus (Innovative Turf Services, Inc.) both received the VTC Lifetime Membership Award for all of their many years of service

working on the VTC board and for helping run many key VTC activities such as the Bob Ruff Jr. Memorial Research Golf Tournament (Petrus) and serving as VTC president (Viancour) for two years. We are fortunate to have such dedicated turf people involved in our industry.

VTC board elections also took place at the Conference on Tuesday during the Conference’s Opening session.

Scott Woodward (Woodward Turf Farms, Inc.) was elected to be the new VTC treasurer. New directors Brian Walker (Riverside Turf) and Tony Montgomery (Draper Valley Golf Club) were also elected. Also, Mike Skelton of Culpepper County Parks and Rec. was re-elected to serve a three-year term on the board. In spring, Jesse Pritchard, CSFM (University of Virginia) will replace Mark Roberts (The Steward School) on the board as the VSTMA representative. Special thanks goes out to Brian Vincel, Steve Smith and Mark Roberts for their years of involvement and hard work in advancing the turfgrass industry through their participation on the VTC board.

The most exciting new development in the VTC world is the merger of the Virginia Turfgrass Council and Virginia Tech with the Maryland Turfgrass Council and the University of Maryland to jointly put on the new Mid-Atlantic Turfgrass Expo (MATE) next January 2016. By combining forces, we will be able to produce an enhanced Conference and Show by expanding the number of attendees and also by attracting new vendors from the Maryland/ Mid-Atlantic areas. Dr. Mike Goatley (Virginia Tech) and Dr. Tom Turner (University of Maryland) are heading up the conference program for this new conference, so look for further improvements in our educational offerings across the spectrum of golf course, sport turf, professional grounds and landscape management disciplines. Please contact our VTC offices or Dr. Goatley/Dr. Turner if you would like to provide input to next year’s conference educational program.

6 | Virginia Turfgrass Journal March/April 2015 www.vaturf.org

Fred Biggers, CGCS 2014–2015 VTC President

Director’s Corner

Reaching for Tom Tracy, Ph.D. VTC Executive Director

Excellence A

Camden Patton, of Patton Property Maintenance, is the first Virginia Certified Turfgrass Professional.

friend of mine, a retired naval officer who spent many years aboard nuclear submarines, told me an anecdote about Admiral Rickover. (For you younger readers, this man is credited for establishing and setting the extremely high standards of America’s nuclear navy.) In response to a report about prolonged inefficiency about a particular submarine, Admiral Rickover said, “Tell the Captain I expect him and his entire crew to be in church next Sunday.” My friend was startled at this strange order. “It’s the only way,” the Admiral continued, “they will not screw something up for one whole hour!”

Two recent developments clearly demonstrate that Virginia Tech and the Virginia Turfgrass Council are doing a whole lot more than concentrating on avoiding making mistakes. One, through Dr. Mike Goatley’s leadership, we launched the Virginia Certified Turfgrass Professional (VCTP) Program. The December Short Course was chosen as the venue for the launch. Nearly 60 attendees were in the pilot class. They sat through four days of instruction and took a rigorous examination. Only four individuals passed the examination and met the other qualifications to become certified. Camden Patton, of Patton Property Maintenance, has the honor of being the very first VCTP (see photo at left). Read more about the program on page 14 of this Journal.

Two, after months of painstaking work, the Mid-Atlantic Turfgrass Expo is a reality! The University of Maryland, the Maryland Turfgrass Council, Virginia Tech and the Virginia Turfgrass Council are pooling resources to produce an event designed to serve a multi-state turfgrass industry. Details are starting to appear on a dedicated conference website — www.turfconference.org. Allow me to mention one key component of this new endeavor: 100% of the net revenue will be used to further turfgrass research at Virginia Tech and the University of Maryland!

Admiral Rickover’s high standards established a nuclear navy second to none, and his constant drive for excellence inspires us all.

Through the Virginia Certified Turfgrass Professional Program and the Mid-Atlantic Turfgrass Conference, we are following his example and reaching for excellence. c

8 | Virginia Turfgrass Journal March/April 2015 www.vaturf.org

Virginia Turfgrass Journal is the official publication of The Virginia Turfgrass Council P.O. Box 5989 Virginia Beach, VA 23471 Office: (757) 464-1004 Fax: (757) 282-2693 vaturf@verizon.net Published by Leading Edge Communications, LLC 206 Bridge Street Franklin, Tennessee 37064 (615) 790-3718 Fax: (615) 794-4524 Email: info@leadingedgecommunications.com Editor Mark Vaughn, CGCS VTC OFFICERS President Fredrick Biggers, CGCS Wintergreen Resort (434) 325-8252 Vice President Rick Owens, CGCS Laurel Hill Golf Club (703) 674-6934 Treasurer Scott Woodward Woodward Turf Farms (540) 727-0020 Past President Frank Flannagan msg1sg@verizon.net (804) 356-1535 VTC DIRECTORS Tony Montgomery Marc Petrus Mark Roberts Christian Sain Michael Skelton Rick Viancour, CGCS Jimmy Viars Brian Walker ­ VTC ADVISORY MEMBERS OF THE BOARD Mike Goatley, Ph.D. (Chair) Shawn Askew, Ph.D. Jeffrey Derr, Ph.D. Erik Ervin, Ph.D. David McCall Executive Director/ Director of PROGRAMS Tom Tracy, Ph.D. (757) 464-1004 Virginia Turfgrass Foundation Betty Parker (757) 574-9061

Editor’s Perspective

Fear and Irrational

Mark Vaughn, CGCS Virginia Turfgrass Journal Editor

Decisions

W

hen I had measles back in 1960, it was a terrible sight. Itchy little raised red whelps all over my body, accompanied by a high fever. Same for chicken pox — in my head, under my arms, ALL over my body. It was miserable. Mumps, yeah, I had them, too. In the Vaughn household, we didn’t want to miss a communicable sickness.

In the early and mid-1960s, my childhood routine revolved around the outdoors. There were creeks to be forged, forts to be built and trails to be ridden, first by spyder bike, then by mini-bike and, finally, by dirt bike.

One winter, a terrible ice storm knocked out power for days. For the adults, it was a time of cooking on camp stoves, fires in the fireplace and water buckets flushing toilets. But, for our band of neighborhood warriors, the pine thickets were instantly transformed into a medieval maze resembling a giant game of pick-up sticks, and it was AWESOME! On Monday of the 2015 VTC Conference, I attended one of the best seminars ever in all my years on the GCSAA merry-go-round. “Leading Change in Your Organization,” presented by Dr. Amy Wallis from Wake Forest University, was an informative, interactive fourhour look at why so many people (including those of us in attendance) are adverse to change.

Measles, ice storms, seminars. Before you decide that I’ve gone all Rain Man on you, let me preach on it.

First, there is a measles outbreak in this country. Fifteen years after this sickness was declared null and void due to a highly effective vaccine, it is back. Physicians blame the outbreak on the growing number of parents refusing to immunize their children.

Preaching on, I was captivated by the second episode of the NPR series “Invisibilia” a few weeks ago. As described on their website: “Thirty years ago, environmental psychologist Roger Hart wanted to study children the way Jane Goodall studied baboons, so he mapped kids’ adventures in a rural New England town, kind of like Harry Potter’s Marauder’s Map.” When he returned to study the children of the children he had followed, he was astounded at the lack of “free range” given to todays’ youngsters.

10 | Virginia Turfgrass Journal March/April 2015 www.vaturf.org

For an in-depth read on this topic, I encourage you to examine the excellent article “The Overprotected Kid”

by Hanna Rosen from the April 2014 edition of The Atlantic magazine.

And for my final sermonette, our seminar class was divided into two groups — “managers” whose task was to convince the rest of us “employees” to accept a necessary change. Their strategy? Explain the facts, let logical reasoning run its course, and mission accomplished.

Except that’s not what happened.

So, why are people not immunizing their children?

Fear of the possible side effects of vaccines. Even though we have years of real-world results showing us otherwise.

Even though science has debunked these theories over and over. Think this is because of poverty or lack of education? This anti-immunization train of thought is most prevalent in affluent, college-educated neighborhoods. Remember the Ebola scare of a few months ago? Guess which highly contagious sickness kills more people.

And why did the small-town parents basically have their kids on lockdown, compared to the world they grew up in? Had the place suddenly turned into the Southside of Chicago? Fear over the growing random violence and crimes against children, when in fact statistics would say otherwise.

And finally, why did the “employees” in our seminar refuse to buy into the change that appeared to benefit them? The fear/suspicion that those we work for/with do not have our best interest at heart.

F…E…A…R. If there’s one thing I took away from Dr. Wallis’ seminar, it is that emotion is an unavoidable and necessary part of the decision-making process. It is what has kept our species alive all of these years. However, when it becomes THE overriding factor, it often leads to a less-than-desirable result. It’s the very thing that drives us to make irrational decisions when the facts say otherwise.

I would argue that many of the business decisions made in golf over the past five or so years have been fear driven, and we will be paying for them for years.

So, what is fear causing you to do/not to do?. c

VTF Report

The Endowment Reaches

$560,000!

Betty Parker VTF Manager

We 1.

are nearly there in realizing our goal of creating an endowment in which we can utilize a substantial amount of money out of the endowment and not affect the principal.

In January of this year alone, the fund generated more than $7,000! When I think what this would mean to one of our researchers, it makes my heart sing!! Thank you to all who responded to our 2014 Fall campaign — we raised $6,816. Thanks to all who contributed to this, including: Louis Brooking Jr. of Brookmeade Sod Farm, Inc. Mark Van Devender of Spotsylvania County Utilities Prillaman Landscape Dimensions, Inc. Rick Viancour of Golden Horseshoe Golf Club Craig Zeigler of Agronomic Lawn Management Thanks also to the Shenandoah Valley Turfgrass Association for its continued support and generous contribution to the VTF. The group’s $2,500 donation brings to date a total of more than $61,000 contributed for turfgrass research, and the SVTA is one of just two organizations that are in our Palladium Club.

Also, we would like to recognize another faithful contributor to the Foundation — Ray Weekley of Chantilly Turf Farms. He contributed $3,000 to the Foundation and the research we support. This gift is so very much appreciated, and we applaud his commitment to the research being done at Virginia Tech.

Our 2015 Putting Contest

2.

3.

4.

The Putting for Research Dollars event at this year’s VTC Turf and Landscape Conference and Show in January provided entertainment at the tradeshow and, of course, a continued awareness of the importance of funding turfgrass research here in Virginia. We sincerely believe that the research we fund enables all of us in the turfgrass industry to do a better job in our professions of maintaining a higher quality of turfgrass.

Scott Woodward of Woodward Sod Farms did an outstanding job again this year, sculpting his wares to create another challenging, genuine turfgrass putting hole. We had only three holes-in-one, but there were lots of awfully good putts. We raised some money and a few eyebrows and had lots of fun. Thanks to all who participated, and congratulations to Clayton Ennis and Joe Donchez, winners of our two big-screen TVs in the putting participants’ raffle. c Photo 1. This year’s putting hole for research dollars was provided by Woodward Sod Farms. • Photo 2. Joe Donchez (left) of VA Green Lawn Care and Clayton Ennis of Devils Ridge Golf Club won the two big-screen TVs in the participants’ raffle. • Photo 3. Dave Geiger shows his true form. • Photo 4. VTC President Fred Biggers, CGCS, shows a budding new golfer the proper swing for putting.

12 | Virginia Turfgrass Journal March/April 2015 www.vaturf.org

News from the VTC

Recently Launched:

Virginia’s Certified Turfgrass Professional (VCTP) Program

By Mike Goatley Jr., Ph.D., Extension Turfgrass Specialist, Virginia Tech, and Tom Tracy, Ph.D., Executive Director, Virginia Turfgrass Council

All

managers who supervise work crews and support staff in the turfgrass industry know that the key to their ultimate success as supervisors AND the longterm success of their business comes from dedicated employees committed to a superior job performance. Opportunities for professional development and career advancement for turf maintenance crewmembers and support staff can be limited by finances, time and the lack of specific education or training required for further advancement. With this in mind, the Virginia Cooperative Extension, the Virginia Turfgrass Council and the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation joined together to develop and offer an affordable, comprehensive training and testing certification program in turfgrass management that is suitable for turfgrass managers of any educational level and/or job status, but it was developed to specifically meet the professional development needs of crewmembers and support staff.

Goals of the Virginia Certified Turfgrass Professional (VCTP) program

Achieving the status of a VCTP will enhance the visibility and professionalism of successful candidates and demonstrate that they have a thorough grasp of the many aspects of environmentally friendly turfgrass management. It is anticipated that the VCTP program will eventually result in a demand for certified professionals by supervisors and general public alike and that these individuals will ultimately be compensated in terms of salary, benefits and further advancement opportunities in their positions for their demonstrated professionalism.

Program administration and requirements

The VCTP program is administered through the Virginia Turfgrass Council and is supported in its efforts by the time, expertise and branding of the Virginia Tech turfgrass team, Virginia Cooperative Extension and Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation. Certification testing is open to anyone, but this particular program targets an industry audience that at present might not have ready access to a professional certification program or the ability/experience requirement to test for certification in the principles in turfgrass management.

The VCTP program is not intended to compete with or replace current certification programs administered by entities with specific turfgrass degree and work experience requirements for certification testing, such as those offered by the Golf Course Superintendents Association of America (GCSAA), the Sports Turf Managers Association (STMA) or the Professional Landcare Network (PLANET). Instead, the VCTP program offers a meaningful, sciencebased certification program that primarily addresses the desire for continued professional development for crewmembers, support staff, etc.

VT and DCR personnel have developed a comprehensive training manual that serves as the primary training resource for certification. This manual contains training specific to ten areas: (1) keys in turfgrass identification; (2) turfgrass adaptation, use, growth and development; (3) soil science principles for turfgrass managers; (4) strategies in fertilizer selection and programming as they apply to urban nutrient management programs; (5) principles in irrigation management; (6) principles in mowing and cultural

14 | Virginia Turfgrass Journal March/April 2015 www.vaturf.org

management programs; (7) principles in turfgrass establishment; (8) the identification and management of turfgrass-specific diseases, insects and weeds; (9) basic turfgrass calculations and principles in sprayer and spreader calibration; and (10) implementing best management practices and integrated pest-management strategies for the protection of water quality.

Certification requires demonstrated success (i.e., 70% or greater scores) in five areas, four that are specific to VCTP testing: (1) turfgrass and pest identification (including weeds, insects and disease symptoms and signs); (2) turfgrass mathematics and spreader/ sprayer calibration and calculations; (3) general turfgrass science core material; and (4) BMPs in water-quality protection. The fifth component for certification is obtaining and maintaining the status of a Virginia Certified Fertilizer Applicator as administered by the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. This certification component can be obtained either online at Virginia Cooperative Extension’s Fertilizer Applicator Certification Testing program (visit www.ext.vt.edu/) or through hands-on training and testing events offered by the Virginia Turfgrass Council throughout the year. Once you successfully pass a subject area with a minimum score of 70%, you have up to one calendar year from the test date to successfully pass all remaining testing components of the certification exam without having to retest in all subject areas.

How is certification achieved and maintained?

The annual VTC-sponsored Virginia Turfgrass Short Course (conducted by the VT turf team and DCR personnel

each winter) will continue to be offered as a specific, four-day intensive training program that will assist attendees in preparation for certification testing on the Friday of Short Course week.

However, enrollment in Short Course is not required to sit for VCTP testing.

The exam will also be offered in conjunction with the annual MidAtlantic Turfgrass Conference and Tradeshow, the HRAREC Field Day in Virginia Beach in June and the Virginia Tech Field Day on the Blacksburg campus. Training for these test dates is left up to the participant, but all registrants will receive the training manual and the associated web links for online training materials. A minimum of four hours of continuing education units in VTC-approved turfgrass education classes every two years is required to maintain certification.

Progress to date

The VTC field-tested (at no-cost to participants) the inaugural certificationtesting program on December 19, 2014, at the conclusion of the 2014 Virginia Turfgrass Short Course at Belmont Recreation Center in Henrico, VA. More than 50 participants sat for certification in our first offering. The VTC is proud to announce that Mr. Camden Patton (Patton Property Maintenance, Inc., Fairfax, VA) is our first VCTP (Camden is pictured in the Director’s Corner column by Dr. Tom Tracy). Congratulations, Camden!

VTC and DCR representatives met in February with representatives of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation and Virginia Chesapeake Bay Program to discuss the new certification program, its goals and objectives and areas for improvement. One of those areas was to enhance the focus on water-quality protection. We agreed with this assessment and are developing an additional training chapter and testing component for certification. Please contact Dr. Mike Goatley (goatley@vt.edu) regarding additional feedback or suggestions for further training and testing components. Please watch for new information, links to training materials and updates on upcoming training opportunities at the program’s page on the VTC website (http:// vaturf.org/virginia_certified_ turfgrass_pro.html). c Journal of the Virginia Turfgrass Council

| 15

Cover Story

Warm-Season Putting Greens in Richmond?

A Review of NTEP Trial Results from CCV

By Erik H. Ervin, Ph.D., Virginia Tech, with Troy Fink, CGCS, Country Club of Virginia

For

much of my research career, a major focus has been on understanding the stress physiology of creeping bentgrass and the cultural-management practices that can lessen putting green summer decline in the transition zone.

Simultaneously, breeders were making major advances in warm-season turfgrasses for putting greens.

Specifically, in the 1990s, ultradwarf bermudagrass cultivars were released that maintained excellent summer quality when mowed at ultra-low heights (0.090" to 0.125"). Champion, TifEagle and MiniVerde were some of the top early performers and have since dominated the warm-season putting green market. Selection was primarily based on density and leaf texture required for low-mow tolerance, with little regard for cold hardiness, shade or salt tolerance. Advances in Zoysia matrella, and in seashore paspalum breeding and selection, offer putting green cultivars with improved cold hardiness and shade tolerance (zoysiagrass) or salt and shade tolerance (paspalum).

While cultivars of all three species (ultradwarf bermudagrass, zoysiagrass

and seashore paspalum) offer reducedmaintenance, summer-tolerant alternatives to creeping bentgrass, none come without challenges as we attempt their utilization in the mid-transition zone (35˚N to 39˚N). At these latitudes, winter survival will require covering the greens when temperatures drop below 25˚F for consecutive days.

Our research

In May and June 2013, McDonald and Sons Golf Course Builders (Andrew Green) worked with Country Club of Virginia (CCV) personnel and other sponsors to design and install a USGA putting green rootzone (90% sand/ 10% peat) near the Tuckahoe Creek Golf Course maintenance facility. On June 27–28, 15 ultradwarf bermudagrass, 11 matrella zoysia and 2 seashore paspalum entries were planted from plugs/sprigs provided by each breeder/ sponsor (see Photo 1 and Table 1).

The CCV (Richmond, VA) site is one of 12 test locations, and at 37.5˚N, it is the second-farthest-north location.

Given the need to mail 3 vegetative trays of 28 entries (84 trays per site) to 12 sites, sprigging/plugging rates

16 | Virginia Turfgrass Journal March/April 2015 www.vaturf.org

were significantly lower than industry standards. At our site, this approximately doubled the time required to reach 100% cover: 4 months for bermudagrass and paspalum entries, and 12 months for zoysia (see Table 1).

Another factor that slowed our ability to lower mowing heights and establish plots to what could be termed “ready to open” was the need to edge plots and prevent entries from spreading into each other. Thus, some longer-term areas of open sand prevented our ability to rapidly lower the mowing height to one typical of “in-play” greens. By the end of 2013, the height was at 0.160" and was still there by the end of 2014.

Before we review more data, let’s review 2013 and 2014 maintenance inputs and practices. In 2013, grow-in nitrogen consisted of 1 lb. N/1,000 ft2 every 2 weeks, for a total of 6 lbs. N/ 1,000 ft2 in 2013. Phosphorus and potassium were applied at less than 2 lbs./1,000 ft2. Topdressing consisted of applying 200 lbs. sand/1,000 ft2 every 3 weeks. One small disease issue (possibly Pythium blight) was seen on the seashore paspalums in late August, so Daconil and Subdue were

Photo 1. Virginia Tech staff breaking up bermudagrass plugs and planting in replicated plots.

applied once. Tebuconazole was applied in late October for spring dead spot disease prevention. Black covers (see Photo 2) were in place from December 10, 2013, to March 1, 2014, and then taken on and off in March, depending on the frost forecast.

Maintenance inputs for 2014 included Ronstar Flo on March 28 for preemergence grassy weed control, approximately 0.5 lb. N/1,000 ft2 per active month of growth and light verticutting every 2 weeks from June 15 to September 1, coupled with topdressing at 100 lbs. sand/1,000 ft2 every 2 weeks from May 15 to October 1. Once active growth resumed, mowing was daily at 0.160" with a front-mounted grooming brush. Tebuconazole (Sept.), then Secure plus Honor (Oct.), were applied for spring dead spot prevention. Covers were installed on December 20.

Throughout the trial, soil moisture has been monitored by Toro TurfGuard in-ground wireless sensors, with irrigation applied to maintain volumetric soil moisture at approximately 15% continuously. No solid tining or core cultivation has occurred to date.

Photo 2. The NTEP trial “under cover,� showing winter color retention of zoysia (front) and poor color retention of bermudagrass (top).

Figure 1. 2014 Winter Soil Temperatures at NTEP Testing Site at the Country Club of Virginia.

Journal of the Virginia Turfgrass Council

| 17

Cover Story continued

Table 1. Entries, sponsors and initial data for 2013 warm-season putting green trial at Country Club of Virginia in Richmond.

Sponsor

Cover %, 9-23-13

Greenup %, 4-3-14

Quality, Sept. 2014

1. Tifdwarf

Standard

98 a

17 j

5.7 def

2. TifEagle

Standard

100 a

42 efgh

7.3 abc

Bermuda

3. MiniVerde

Standard

98 a

26 ij

7.3 abc

4. Sunday

Sod Solutions

100 a

52 de

2.7 def

5. 08-T-18

GA Seed

99 a

45 efg

7.0 abcd

6. 11-T-861

GA Seed

99 a

26 ij

5.3 efg

Univ. of Florida

98 a

50 def

7.7 ab

7. FAES 1302 8. OKC 13-78-5

OK State Univ.

100 a

82 c

6.3 bcde

9. OKC 1-75-2

OK State Univ.

99 a

32 hi

5.7 def

10. OKC 16-13-8

OK State Univ.

96 a

42 efgh

5.7 def

11. MSB-264

MS State Univ.

100 a

38 gh

7.7 ab

12. MSB-285

MS State Univ.

100 a

45 efg

7.0 abcd

13. CTF-E3

Champion Turf

45 e

1k

2.7 j

14. CTF-B10

Champion Turf

83 b

40 fgh

8.0 a

Univ. of Arizona

100 a

60 d

8.0 a

Univ. of Florida

60 dc

95 ab

6.0 cde

15. JK 110521 Zoysia 16. FAES 1301

GA Seed

60 dc

85 bc

3.7 hij

18. L1F

17. 10-TZ-74

Bladerunner

82 b

93 ab

6.3 bcde

19. DALZ 1306

Bladerunner

60 dc

95 ab

4.3 fghi

20. DALZ 1307

Bladerunner

55 de

97 a

5.3 efg

21. DALZ 1308

Bladerunner

67 c

95 ab

5.7 def

22. DALZ 1309

Bladerunner

48 e

98 a

3.3 ij

Standard

50 de

95 ab

4.3 fghi

24. DALZ 1304

Bladerunner

52 de

93 ab

5.0 efgh

25. DALZ 1305

Bladerunner

52 de

95 ab

3.7 hij

S. Illinois Univ.

47 e

93 ab

4.0 ghij

27. SeaDwarf

Standard

98 a

35 ghi

6.0 de

28. UGA 1743

Univ. of GA

99 a

32 hi

3.7 hij

23. Diamond

26. ZOYSIU Seashore paspalum

Our results Establishment rate

All bermudagrass entries, except the two from Champion Turf Farms (#13 and #14 in the table), were at or near 100% cover by three months after planting (Photo 3 and Table 1).

The plant material received from Champion Turf Farms was very thin, so the “sprigging” rate for these two entries was much lower compared

to the others. Compared to MiniVerde, four bermudagrass entries filled in faster by midAugust: 08-T-18 (from GA Seed), OKC 13-78-5 (OK State), MSB-264 (MS State) and JK 110521 (Univ. of Ariz.). Both seashore paspalums filled in at an equivalent rate as the bermudas. The zoysia entries were much slower to spread, with L1F (Bladerunner) outperforming all others.

18 | Virginia Turfgrass Journal March/April 2015 www.vaturf.org

Winter color, winterkill and spring greenup

The zoysias retain considerable winter color as compared to the bermudagrass and seashore paspalum entries (Photo 2). Based on these observations, it appears that zoysia putting greens in Virginia would need minimal winter painting for aesthetics. With covers consistently in place from mid-December to March, shallow (2") soil temperatures never dropped below 30˚F (see

Photo 3. Bermuda plots on the NTEP green at 100% cover on Sept 12, 2014.

Figure 1), and no winterkill of any entries occurred. Spring greenup of all zoysia entries was rapid, reaching 85% to 98% by April 3 (Table 1). Greenup was considerably more variable for the bermudagrass entries, with OKC 13-78-5 being the fastest (82%), the Arizona entry (15) next at 60%, and the standards (1-3) lagging behind at 17-42%.

Turfgrass quality

Highest end-of-summer visual quality for the bermudagrasses was an 8.0 for one of the Champion Turf Farm entries (CTF-B10) and the University of Arizona entry (JK 110521). Other statistically equivalent entries were from Mississippi State (MSB-285; 7.7) and University of Florida (FAES 1302; 7.7), followed by two standards, TifEagle and MiniVerde at 7.3 (Table 1). The Oklahoma State entries (#8, #9 and #10) have coarser leaf texture and density similar to Tifdwarf, resulting in lower overall quality. Only two zoysia entries had enough plot cover, density and fineness of leaf texture to be rated as acceptable (> 6.0): L1F and FAES 1301. SeaDwarf paspalum finished 2014 with a 6.0 rating, while the UGA entry experienced unacceptable thinning due to susceptibility to summer diseases.

Concluding remarks

With winter covering, the use of ultradwarf bermudagrass on putting greens in Richmond appears to be realistic.

Additionally, entries from Arizona, Mississippi, Florida and Champion Turf Farms are outperforming the current TifEagle and MiniVerde standards. Zoysiagrasses, especially L1F, show some promise, but they most likely would require sodding at establishment. Finally, while seashore paspalum has survived with covering, its performance is poor compared to the bermudagrasses. Stay tuned for more updates, as the trial continues through 2017.

Thank you to our research sponsors: National Turfgrass Evaluation Program, United States Golf Association, Country Club of Virginia, Smith Turf and Irrigation, McDonald and Sons, Egypt Farms, Luckstone and Virginia Tech. c Journal of the Virginia Turfgrass Council

| 19

Feature Story

The Pros and Cons

of Artificial and Natural Grass Athletic Fields

By Mike Goatley Jr., Ph.D., Professor and Turfgrass Extension Specialist, Virginia Tech

I

nstallations of synthetic athletic fields have rapidly grown in the 21st century due to population growth in urban areas and the associated increased demand for playing surfaces by athletes of all ages, shapes, skills and sizes. New-generation synthetic fields also play more like natural grass than ever before, with the crumbrubber-infill fields being the most revolutionary systems in use.

An immediate advantage of synthetic fields is how much more traffic they can tolerate, especially during inclement weather. Management and maintenance programs are also commonly cited as inherent advantages with synthetic fields, and I have no doubt that one does not need an agronomic degree to successfully manage these fields. Plus, crumb-rubber-infill fields

offer a major means of recycling used tires (a desirable benefit in an era focused on sustainability and recycling), and the rubber infill has revolutionized the performance characteristics of synthetic fields that are now more comparable to natural grass than ever.

However, synthetic fields come with huge price tags at installation, AND they are far from being maintenance free, as they were so heavily touted in the earliest stages of the release of synthetic infill systems. Also, within the past six months, synthetic infill fields have had a renewed focus on their safety, and this time it is not associated with heat loads or foot/leg injuries.

Pay attention

The 2015 legislative session in Virginia saw the introduction of HB 2317,

legislation that proposed a three-year moratorium on the installation of crumb-rubber-infill synthetic fields within the boundaries of a public or private elementary or secondary school, public or private preschool, or recreational park by any (1) public or private elementary or secondary school, (2) public or private preschool or (3) local governing body. The reason for concern? The very crumb rubber that has revolutionized their playability characteristics can contain heavy metals and release volatile organic compounds. The bill died this session, but it will not be surprising if it reappears in the future.

What sparked this sudden interest in the safety of synthetic fields to its users? I strongly suspect it was the fall 2014 NBC news story that suggested a link between cancer in several women

Photo 1. (above) Meeting the specifications for the subgrade is just as important for synthetic fields as those for natural turfgrass systems.

Journal of the Virginia Turfgrass Council

| 21

Cover Story

Photo 2. Crumb-rubber infill revolutionized the playing characteristics of synthetic turf, but its use continues to be controversial due to perceived health concerns.

soccer goalies in Washington State to chronic exposure to crumb-rubberinfill synthetic fields. Is the evidence conclusive? Absolutely not. Will (or should) synthetic field installations cease? Absolutely not. They remain valuable tools for sports fields in areas that simply don’t have enough space to support natural turf systems with use demands. Certainly, however, there is a need for more research in the area of human health, and it seems logical that this research needs to come from within the medical profession rather than from an agronomist.

Some basic comparisons on requirements

Let’s make some comparisons of synthetic and natural grass fields, and let’s start by stating these facts: • Both systems require specifications in construction and maintenance that must be followed for longterm success.

• Either can be cost prohibitive.

• Both require expertise and management.

• Either can meet expectations if properly managed.

• Either of these systems can fail.

Natural grass fields are cheaper to establish; they are quick and reasonably affordable to renew/repair; and they provide water filtration, soil stabilization, temperature moderation, CO2 fixation and O2 replenishment.

Synthetic fields offer (theoretically) unlimited use under a wide range of weather conditions, playing surface uniformity and overall reduced maintenance requirements.

Natural grass fields require an informed manager who is astute in

the use of equipment, chemicals and irrigation AND in managing/training people in the proper use of the field.

When it comes to managing soils, turfgrass and traffic, there is no doubt that the expertise and tools required to manage a heavily trafficked natural grass field are quite large compared to the tools and training/experience required to manage synthetic fields.

However, there is a continuing perception by the general public that synthetic systems are “maintenance free,” and that is a huge mistake in terms of maintaining their warranties/ guarantees AND their safety. To their credit, the Synthetic Turf Council has done an excellent job recently in emphasizing the importance of a planned maintenance program on their website. Without proper brushing and cleaning, synthetic fields can have serious field surface hardness issues (more on this later) that are a player safety concern, as well as a concern in voiding their warranties.

The heat load question

Field temperature extremes during high-heat weather patterns are a regular concern on synthetic turf systems. Surface temperatures of synthetic systems on a day when ambient air temperatures are 80˚F to 90˚F can be 40 to 60 degrees higher. Irrigation can provide temporary relief in moderating synthetic-field temperatures, but the effect is short lived, typically lasting 15 to 20 minutes.

In Virginia, the Virginia High School League has its own set of Heat Guidelines (http:www.vhsl.org/doc/upoad/ smac-heat-guide-July%202010.pdf) that consider both ambient air temperatures

22 | Virginia Turfgrass Journal March/April 2015 www.vaturf.org

and relative humidity (often termed as the “humiture”) in regards to player safety. It has guidelines to follow regarding the necessity for athletes taking periodic breaks, maintaining player hydration and so forth. However, it doesn’t appear that the Heat Guidelines address the elevated temperatures that occur on synthetic systems during the highest heat/ humidity conditions of the summer. If this information is there, it isn’t easily accessed, based on my searching of the VHSL website. To be fair, the heat loading of synthetic fields can be advantageous during colder periods and very beneficial in terms of enhanced snow melt on synthetic turf compared to natural grass.

Costs

It is difficult to make comparisons in costs because systems (modified sandbased soil versus native soil? rubber infill versus another synthetic system? comparisons across systems?) are so highly variable. In general, it will almost always be the case that a synthetic system will have a much larger installation cost, but the synthetic field is touted as lasting somewhere between 6 to 10 years, based on the type of field installed and how closely maintenance programs are followed.

How many events can they host?

Synthetic fields will easily handle 100+ events per year, independent of weather conditions. A natural grass field can handle 50 events per year, but it can be seriously damaged by just one event during or soon after a significant rain event.

Natural grass systems require numerous pieces of equipment and practices in daily management, whereas synthetic fields need fewer. New management strategies, such as fraze mowing, are expanding the boundaries of natural grass performance. Synthetic fields will ultimately have significant disposal costs that are in the $115,000 range, and then a new carpet must be purchased.

I believe the Sports Turf Managers Association’s “Guide to Synthetic and Natural Turfgrass for Sports Fields” (found at www.STMA.org) does a great job detailing the selection, construction

and maintenance considerations between the systems, and one of the most widely cited parts of the publication are the cost comparisons. This publication is definitely worth a close look when comparing the systems.

What’s new or likely coming very soon?

I encourage anyone who manages synthetic turf or is exploring the possibility of an installation to pay attention to the research programs at the University of Tennessee and Penn State University.

There continues to be great work doing side-by-side evaluations of bermudagrass and synthetics in Knoxville and cool-season grasses and synthetics in State College. In particular, research continues to try to identify new infill materials that result in less heat load in the synthetic systems.

Both programs also continue to research the interactions between footwear and synthetic surfaces. One thing that appears to be pretty consistent when talking about injuries and synthetic turf systems is the importance of playing with the correct shoe for the field and its surface conditions (particularly when it comes to surface moisture).

Hybrid systems offer many of the advantages of both types of playing surface, with the most celebrated sites in the United States being the Desso Grassmaster fields at Green Bay and Denver for their NFL teams.

This system has an extensive series of synthetic fibers that are sewn directly into the natural turf field. There are always synthetic fibers underneath the natural turf, so there is always a surface to provide traction as the natural grass wears due to traffic. The system has been very popular for years in Europe for many of the Premier League teams.

The latest hybrid system, one that’s in its early stages of implementation, is the XtraGrass system being sold through Graff Turf Farms of Colorado.

This system utilizes a biodegradable mat installed on a prepared soil at the sod farm, and it is then seeded with a cool-season grass (Kentucky bluegrass, in that part of the world). The product is harvested and installed as it would Journal of the Virginia Turfgrass Council

| 23

Feature Story continued

be for a standard sod. It provides immediate improved wear tolerance and traction from the synthetic mat, and over time, the mat degrades.

In the world of natural grass, Chad Price, CSFM and CFB of Carolina Green Inc., detailed “Game On” grass at the VTC Conference in January. This product is a thick bermudagrass sod grown entirely on plastic, and its sheer size, weight and root/stem mass afford it immediate playability upon installation and exceptional wear tolerance.

The other grassing system to pay attention to is the possibility of zoysiagrass as a sports turf. Dr. Milt Engelke (formerly of Texas A&M University and now with Team Zoysia) gave two presentations at the VTC Conference that showed that with the right equipment and management programs, zoysiagrass has the type of biomass and stem architecture that are very desirable for a sports turf surface.

Field monitoring of surface hardness is already being practiced in many

urban areas. The American Society for Testing and Materials has a standard for testing and reporting surface hardness of athletic fields. ASTM recommends using the F355 device for measuring hardness on the basis of Gmax values (the harder a surface is, the faster the weight that is dropped stops and the greater the Gmax value), while researchers at Penn State conclude that the much-more-affordable Clegg Hammer can provide equally valid information on surface hardness using its own scale of Gmax values. Either way, anticipate such data collection and reporting to likely become a standard activity on all fields, synthetic and natural grass.

Closing thoughts

A well-maintained natural turfgrass surface is almost always the preferred playing surface by athletes of all skill levels, ages and sizes. The key phrase is “well-maintained” natural grass fields.

However, synthetic systems will always be an important tool at facilities with

24 | Virginia Turfgrass Journal March/April 2015 www.vaturf.org

Photo 3. A Clegg hammer is one tool that can be used to assess surface hardness of synthetic and natural turfgrass athletic fields.

multi-use fields under intensive, repetitive use. Both systems require clear specifications in the contract regarding their construction because drainage, water movement and infiltration are keys to success for both natural and synthetic systems. Ask questions of contractors bidding on projects, and check their experience and previous work for both systems. c

Recent Event

Highlights from the

VTC’s 2015 Turf & Landscape Conference & Tradeshow, January 26–29

26 | Virginia Turfgrass Journal March/April 2015 www.vaturf.org

Congratulations to the 2015

VTC AWard winners

Also, Kudos to our

Scholarship

Winners

Louis & Ginger Brooking Turfgrass Graduate Student Scholarship Sudan Gyawaly, Virginia Tech Chantel Wilson, Virginia Tech

R.D. Cake/Silver Tray Award Steve Smith | Specialty Turf Services

(with Frank Flannagan, VTC Past President, left)

The VTC Award

Brian Vincel, CGCS | Spring Creek Golf Club (with Frank Flannagan, VTC Past President, left)

Thomas B. Hutcheson Jr. Memorial Scholarship Ben Morrison, Virginia Tech

W.S. “Bill” Connelly Memorial Scholarship Camden Shelton, Virginia Tech

Robert P. Ruff Sr. Memorial Scholarship VTC President’s Award

Betty Parker | Virginia Turfgrass Foundation (with Fred Biggers, CGCS, VTC President, left)

Lifetime Membership Award Rick Viancour, CGCS Golden Horseshoe Golf Club (with Frank Flannagan, VTC Past President, left)

Alex Johnston, Virginia Tech Lee Price, Virginia Tech

Lifetime Membership Award

Mark Petrus | Innovative Turf Services

(with Frank Flannagan, VTC Past President, left)

VTC presidents honored at the Presidents Dinner. Seated (left to right): Rick Viancour, CGCS (2007–2009); Fred Biggers, CGCS (2014–2015); Frank Flannagan (2012– 2013); and Lin Diacont III (1993–1994). Standing (left to right): Dick Fisher, CGCS (1988–1989); Brook Parker, CGCS (1995–1996); Sterling Caudle, CGCS (1997– 1998); and Louis Brooking Jr. (2002–2003).

Dr. Milt Engelke (Texas A&M, Emeritus, and Team Zoysia) made two presentations on the uses of zoysiagrass in various settings.

Journal of the Virginia Turfgrass Council

| 27

Thanks to Our Generous 2015

conference Sponsors Platinum

Harmon Turf Services Jacobsen Landscape Supply, Inc. Riverside Turf Sod Solutions Weed Man

Gold

Crop Production Services

Tuesday Lunch Nufarm

Fellowship Breakfast Specialty Turf Services, Inc. Trinity Turf, Inc.

Putting Contest

Virginia Sod Growers Virginia Turfgrass Foundation

Wi-Fi

Southern States Cooperative

Thanks to Our Exhibitors AQUA-AID Aquarius Supply Aquatic Resource Mgmt.

ArcTech, Inc. Ballard Sports BASF Bayer Environmental Science Brandt Consolidated Bulldog Field Equipment Buy Sod, Inc. Capital Sports Fields Charlottesville Power Equip./Ventrac Chesapeake Valley Seed City of Fredericksburg Collins Wharf Sod Crop Production Services Davisson Golf Dow AgroSciences Earth Tech Eastern Lift Truck Co. Edward Jones Egypt Farms Finch Services/Revels Turf & Tractor First Products Fisher & Son Co. Floratine Products Group Tom Rash Company

FMC Professional Solutions Foley Mfg. FTG/Schaeffer Mfg. Co. Genesis Turfgrass GCSAA Golfware Solutions Grasshopper Company H&H Farm Machine, Inc. Haifa Harmon Turf Services Innovative Turf Services Jacobsen Turf James River Equip./Finn John Deere Landscapes Kenneth Cominsky Kipps Nursery Landscape Supply Latitude 36 / NorthBridge Bermudagrass Lawrence Equipment Leading Edge Communications Lebanon Turf Luck Specialty Products Magic Salt McCord Golf Services and Safety McDonald & Sons/ McDonald Design Group Mid-Atlantic Stihl

MiniVerde by Modern Turf National Arboretum Newsom Seed Nufarm Oakwood Sod Patten Seed/Super-Sod PBI Gordon Pennington Seed Plant Food Company Port City Staffing Professional Grounds Mgmt.

Society – VA ProPump & Controls/ Flowtronex Quali-Pro Rainbird Reddick Equipment Co. of NC, LLC Richmond Landscape Contractors Assn.

Riverside Turf Roxbury Farm & Garden Center Saturated Solutions Scott Turf Equipment SePRO Corporation Smith Turf & Irrigation Solu-Cal-USA/Haifa North America Southern States Cooperative

28 | Virginia Turfgrass Journal March/April 2015 www.vaturf.org

Sports Aggregates STEC Equipment STI Pre-Owned Equipment STI Turfcare Sweep-N-Fill Syngenta TETAC The Coastal Group The New Virginia Tractor Trinity Turf Turf & Garden Turfline VGCSA Virginia Compost Council VA Dept. of Agriculture & Consumer Services VA Dept. of Conservation & Recreation VA Dept. of Environmental Quality VA Resources Recycled/ Watkins Nurseries Virginia STMA Virginia Turfgrass Foundation Weed Man WinField Solutions, LLC Woodward Turf Farms YardWorks, LLC

Turfgrass Calendar April 28

Pesticide Recertification (Regional Seminar)

Lorton, VA

May 26

Pesticide Recertification (Regional Seminar)

Gypsy Hill Park Staunton, VA

June 23

Hampton Roads AREC Turfgrass Field Day, Pesticide Recertification and VCTP Exam

Hampton Roads AREC Virginia Beach, VA

July 9–11

TPI Live Show & Tell

June 16

(Turfgrass Producers International) Portland, OR

Hampton, VA

July 19–21

Pesticide Recertification (Regional Seminar)

PLANET Legislative Day on the Hill

Washington, D.C.

July 27 – August 1 Perennial Plant Symposium

Hilton Baltimore Baltimore, MD

Bob Ruff Jr. Memorial Research Golf Tournament

Wintergreen Resort — Devils Knob Course Wintergreen, VA

August 2–6

StormCon — 2015 Conference

The Stormwater Pollution Prevention Conference JW Marriott Austin Austin, TX

August 25–26

VT / Blacksburg Turfgrass Field Days and VCTP Exam

Virginia Tech Blacksburg, VA

September TBD

September 15–17 NRPA Congress and Expo

Las Vegas, NV

January 25–28, 2016

Mid-Atlantic Turfgrass Expo

Fredericksburg Expo & Conference Center Fredericksburg, VA

Virginia Turfgrass Council (VTC) 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 not necessarily represent the views of the association, its staff, or its board of directors, Virginia Turfgrass Journal, or its editors. Likewise, the appearance of advertisers, or VTC members, does not constitute an endorsement of the products or services featured in this, past or subsequent issues of this bimonthly publication. Copyright ©2015 by the Virginia Turfgrass Council. Virginia Turfgrass Journal is published bimonthly. Subscriptions are complimentary to members of VTC. POSTMASTER: Send change of address notification to VTC, P.O. Box 5989, Virginia Beach, VA 23471. Postage guaranteed. Third-class postage is paid at Nashville, TN. Printed in the U.S.A. Reprints and Submissions: Virginia Turfgrass Journal allows reprinting of material published here. Permission requests should be directed to VTC. We are not responsible for unsolicited freelance manuscripts and photographs. Contact the managing editor for contribution information. Advertising: For display and classified advertising rates and insertions, please contact Leading Edge Communications, LLC, 206 Bridge Street, Franklin, TN 37068-0142, (615) 790-3718, Fax (615) 794-4524. Deadlines are the first of the month prior to the following month’s publication. (Example: August 1 for the September issue.)

Journal of the Virginia Turfgrass Council

| 29

Index of Advertisers Agronomic Lawn Management ................... 30 www.fertilizewithalm.com Alliance Material Handling, Inc..................... 9 www.alliancemat.com Bayer................................................................ 5 www.bayerprocentral.com Brouwer/Kesmac............................................ 3 www.kesmac.com Buy Sod................................Inside Back Cover www.buysod.com Chesapeake Valley........................................ 29 www.turfandnativeseed.com Collins Wharf Sod Farm............................... 19 www.cwsod.com Colonial Farm Credit.................................... 30 www.colonialfarmcredit.com East Coast Sod & Seed................................. 30 www.eastcoastsod.com Ernst Conservation Seeds............................. 23 www.ernstseed.com Fisher & Son Company, Inc......................... 11 www.fisherandson.com KWMI/K & W Products, Inc....................... 20 www.kwmiequipment.com Leading Edge Communications.......15, 19, 23, 25 www.leadingedgecommunications.com Lebanon Turf................................. Back Cover www.countryclubmd.com Luck Stone Corporation............................... 15 www.luckstone.com Modern Turf, Inc............................................ 9 www.modernturf.com Perdue Agrirecycle/Perdue Farms, Inc...... 13 www.perdueagrirecycle.com Progressive Turf Equipment, Inc................ 24 www.progressiveturfequip.com Smith Seed Services...................................... 30 www.smithseed.com Southern States Cooperative........................Inside Front Cover www.southernstates.com The Turfgrass Group..................................... 7 www.theturfgrassgroup.com

Digital Marketplace

30 | Virginia Turfgrass Journal March/April 2015 www.vaturf.org

Scan the QR code: Download your favorite QR reader to your phone and scan the code to learn more about these companies.