Pennsylvania Turfgrass - Spring 2018

Spring 2018 • Vol. 7/No. 2

Evaluation of Some New

Bentgrasses for Golf Course Fairway and Tees Also, from KAFMO — Transition: From Golf Course Superintendent to Athletic Field Manager

Vol. 7 / No. 2 • Spring 2018

Pennsylvania Turfgrass Council P.O. Box 99 Boalsburg, PA 16827-0550 Phone: (814) 237-0767 Fax: (814) 414-3303 www.paturf.org Publisher: Leading Edge Communications, LLC 206 Bridge St. • Franklin, TN 37064 Phone: (615) 790-3718 Fax: (615) 794-4524 info@leadingedge communications.com Pennsylvania Turfgrass Editor John Kaminski, Ph.D. Penn State • jek156@psu.edu

8

Pennsylvania Turfgrass Associate Editors Maria Landschoot maria.landschoot3@gmail.com Heather Welch Penn State • hgw1@psu.edu President Pete Ramsey Messiah College • Mechanicsburg, PA (717) 577-5401 Vice President Chase Rogan GCSAA Field Staff • Mid-Atlantic Region Allison Park, PA (614) 241-3037 Secretary-Treasurer Tom Fisher Wildwood Golf Club • Allison Park, PA (412) 518-8384

13 Features

Departments

8 Golf Course Notes

6 President’s Update

Evaluation of Some New Bentgrasses for Golf Course Fairways & Tees

13 Recent Event

Eastern PA Turf Conference

14 Between the Lines

Transition: From Golf Course Superintendent to Athletic Field Manager

16 Research Summary Entomology Lab News

4 Pennsylvania Turfgrass • Spring 2018

17 Penn State News 18 Calendar of Events 18 Advertiser Index

Past President Andrew Dooley Berkshire Country Club • Reading, PA (610) 451-3229 Directors Tom Bettle Penn State University Rick Catalogna Walker Supply, Inc. Dan Douglas Reading Fightin Phils Elliott Dowling USGA Agronomist, Northeast Region Nick Huttie Muhlenberg College Shawn Kister Longwood Gardens Tim Wilk Scotch Valley Country Club Matt Wolf Penn State University

Spring 2018 • Pennsylvania Turfgrass

5

President’s Update

Over-

regulated I

wish this message was about plant growth regulators, but, unfortunately, it’s not. It is about us being regulated right out of business. The turfgrass industry is confronted with many issues, from labor and fertilizer legislation to water rights. Some people view golf as an elitist sport, and they think athletic fields could make their children sick; yet they go home, dump whatever they can on their home lawns, and have a “Save the Bay” sticker on their car. Of course, we know this is the uninformed opinion of a few, but those few often are louder and more organized than those in our industry.

Recently, I came to this painful realization at a press conference on regulatory reform at the capitol in Pennsylvania.

Most other industries, which are regulated by the same agencies as we are,

have started taking advantage of what is happening in Washington.

The appointment of Scott Pruitt as EPA director by the current administration was the equivalent of a Roundup application to the agency and its abuse of power. He is redirecting the agency to write reasonable regulation that does not inhibit economic growth. There is a similar movement within our state legislature. Several representatives throughout Pennsylvania have formed the Common Sense Caucus. This initiative already has written more than a dozen bills calling for reform on a variety of issues, including legislative overreach and regulatory reform. There is a real opportunity for us to take a seat at the table. The turfgrass industry, however, has an inherent problem with how fractured we are on our issues.

Legislation will not make the distinctions between where and how turf is grown.

We will be regulated with a broad brush.

That is how the system works.

Those in the golf, sports-turf, and lawn-care industries must find a way to come together to monitor these issues and be able to mobilize rapidly when needed. Our current plan of reacting to “did you hear about this” will fail repeatedly. There have been discussions between the council and the PA Golf Course Owners Association on a better strategy. We need to bring together individuals from all disciplines of turf to discuss these issues. We should maintain our identities in the industry and present a united front to regulation.

It can be done successfully, but we need the help of the sports-turf and lawncare communities as well. The recent Eastern PA Turf Conference proved that we can come together. That event was hugely successful and already is expanding for next year. I have expectations that an organized lobbying team will present an implemented plan at next year’s conference. If you have questions or suggestions, please feel free to contact me at pramsey@ messiah.edu. Thank you for your continued support of the Pennsylvania Turfgrass Council.

Pete Ramsey 2017–2018 PTC President 6 Pennsylvania Turfgrass • Spring 2018

Spring 2018 • Pennsylvania Turfgrass

7

Golf Course Notes

Evaluation of Some New

Bentgrasses for Golf Course Fairways & Tees

By Pete Landschoot, Ph.D., Professor of Turfgrass Science, Penn State University

If

you are a golf course manager considering resurfacing one or more fairways or tees, or just interseeding thinning areas, know that there are some excellent bentgrass cultivars from which to choose. Currently, over fifty bentgrass cultivars are commercially available in the US, and many differ with respect to rate of establishment, density, color, disease resistance, stress tolerance, and aggressiveness. Choosing the right cultivar or blend of cultivars for your particular situation is important for long-term performance of your fairways and tees.

Finding reliable information on fairway and tee bentgrasses can be challenging. If you seek advice from seed

8 Pennsylvania Turfgrass • Spring 2018

company reps, consultants, or other turf managers, be sure to consider that soil types, microclimates, golfer expectations, and resources for managing turf at your course are unique and may differ from other golf courses. Also, take into account that some bentgrass cultivars are more suitable for putting greens than for tees and fairways. Some special considerations for fairways and tees are: rate of thatch accumulation, tolerance to diseases, and ability to resist Poa annua encroachment.

One source of information you can use in the bentgrass selection process is test data from the National Turfgrass Evaluation Program (NTEP). NTEP is an organization that coordinates tests of

commercial and experimental turfgrass cultivars at universities throughout the US. Data generated from these tests can provide comparative information about turfgrass characteristics and performance. Although NTEP tests can’t simulate all the traffic and management conditions found on golf courses, they do provide information on seedling vigor, quality, density, color, disease and insect tolerance, and other parameters.

NTEP Bentgrass Fairway/Tee Test

In September of 2008, 23 bentgrass cultivars and selections were established from seed at the Joseph Valentine

Table 1. Quality ratings for the 2008-2013 NTEP Bentgrass Fairway/Tee Test at Penn State.

Data represent averages of monthly quality ratings for each year of the 5-year test. Quality is rated on a scale of 9-1, with 9 = highest quality.

Turfgrass Research Center in University Park, PA, as part of a five-year NTEP test. Entries were supplied to NTEP by private seed companies and were seeded at 1.1 lbs seed/1000 ft2 in plots on a tilled Hagerstown silt loam soil.

Three replicate plots of each entry were included in this test, and plots were randomized in each replicate. The test was mowed three times per week at 0.5 inch during the growing season, core aerated once per year, and received between 2 and 3 lbs nitrogen/1000 ft2 per year for most of the five-year test.

Assessments of bentgrass performance were made by the author and are based on visual ratings using a 1 to 9 scale, with 9 indicating best performance for a particular criterion. Performance criteria, including seedling vigor, quality, color, and disease incidence were used to evaluate the bentgrasses.

Monthly quality ratings are a measure of density, texture, uniformity, and lack of disease. P. annua encroachment ratings were made at the end of the test and were assessed as a percentage of P. annua cover in each plot.

Quality Rating Averaged Over Growing Season§ Entry

Bentgrass Species

SRP-1WM 007*

Summary of Results

Data for performance assessment ratings are presented in Tables 1 and 2. All cultivars listed in these tables are commercially available, except for SRP-1WM, A08-EBM, BCD, A08-FT12, and PST-R9D7.

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

5-year Ave.

Creeping

7.4

8.1

7.4

7.4

7.4

7.5

Creeping

7.3

8.3

7.2

6.8

7.3

7.4

Authority*

Creeping

7.4

8.2

7.5

6.8

7.0

7.4

Proclamation*

Creeping

7.5

8.0

7.3

6.7

7.1

7.3

Pure Select*

Creeping

7.6

7.9

7.0

6.8

7.1

7.3

Barracuda*

Creeping

7.7

7.8

6.8

6.7

7.2

7.2

Pin-Up*

Creeping

7.3

7.9

6.9

7.1

6.8

7.2

Declaration*

Creeping

7.4

8.0

6.6

6.7

7.0

7.1

Luminary*

Creeping

7.4

7.3

6.9

6.7

7.1

7.1

T-1*

Creeping

7.4

7.4

7.2

6.4

6.3

6.9

Benchmark DSR*

Creeping

7.4

6.7

6.8

6.6

6.1

6.7

CY-2*

Creeping

7.0

7.2

6.6

6.5

6.2

6.7

Crystal Bluelinks*

Creeping

7.1

6.4

6.3

6.3

6.2

6.5

L-93*

Creeping

6.3

6.4

6.1

5.8

6.3

6.2

Memorial*

Creeping

6.4

6.7

5.6

5.8

6.0

6.1

A08-EBM

Colonial

6.1

5.6

4.1

3.9

4.7

4.9

BCD

Colonial

6.4

5.7

4.0

4.1

3.0

4.6

Penncross*

Creeping

5.4

4.6

4.2

4.0

4.5

4.5

Princeville*

Creeping

4.9

5.2

4.0

4.1

4.1

4.5

Greentime*

Colonial

6.4

5.1

3.7

4.1

3.4

4.5

Tiger II*

Colonial

6.3

5.3

3.8

3.7

3.3

4.5

A08-FT12

Creeping

6.6

6.0

4.4

4.2

4.4

4.3

PST-R9D7

Colonial

5.2

4.4

2.5

2.4

2.1

3.3

0.8

1.0

0.9

0.8

1.0

–––

LSD

ǂ

Quality ratings indicate the overall appearance of the turf and can incorporate several components including density; texture; uniformity; as well as freedom from disease, weed, and insect damage.

Quality is rated using a scale of 1-9, where 9 = highest quality.

§

* Indicates cultivar is commercially available.

LSD = Least significant difference. Differences between two entries are statistically significant only if the LSD value, listed at the bottom of each column, is exceeded by the numerical difference between the two entries. For example, if cultivar “A” is 1.0 unit higher in quality than cultivar “B,” then this difference is significant only if the LSD value is less than 1.0.

ǂ

Turfgrass quality Of the commercially available cultivars in this test, 007, Authority, Proclamation, Pure Select, Barracuda, Pin-Up, Declaration, and Luminary tended to receive the highest average quality ratings from 2009-2013 (Table 1). These cultivars (all creeping bentgrasses) generally ranked higher than other entries, due to their excellent density, fine texture, uniformity, disease resistance, and low amounts of P. annua. T-1, Benchmark DSR, and CY-2 creeping bentgrass cultivars received high quality ratings during the first three years of the test period, but slightly lower ratings in the last two years. Crystal Bluelinks, L-93, and CY-2 received intermediate quality ratings throughout most of the test period.

The 2008-2013 NTEP Fairway/Tee Test site at the Joseph Valentine Turfgrass Research Center in University Park.

Table 2. Seedling vigor, genetic color, dollar spot, and P. annua ratings for the 2008-2013 NTEP Bentgrass Fairway/Tee Test. Ratings are based on a scale of 9-1, with 9 = fastest establishment for seedling vigor, darkest green genetic color, and no dollar spot present.

P. annua encroachment ratings are based on a percent (%) P annua cover basis.

Entry

Bentgrass Species

Seedling Vigor§

Genetic Color§

Dollar Spot Tolerance§

% P. annua Encroachment§

SRP-1WM

Creeping

5.0

6.9

8.5

2

007*

Creeping

5.7

6.0

8.3

1

Authority*

Creeping

6.0

5.7

7.8

8

Proclamation*

Creeping

6.7

5.8

9.0

3

Pure Select*

Creeping

5.7

5.9

7.7

4

Barracuda*

Creeping

6.3

5.4

8.5

2

Pin-Up*

Creeping

5.0

5.7

8.3

1

Declaration*

Creeping

6.0

5.9

9.0

2

Luminary*

Creeping

6.0

6.6

8.2

7

T-1*

Creeping

6.7

8.7

5.7

6

Benchmark DSR*

Creeping

6.3

7.7

8.8

1

CY-2*

Creeping

6.0

6.0

8.2

5

Crystal Bluelinks*

Creeping

6.0

6.3

7.7

9

L-93*

Creeping

6.0

5.9

8.0

10

Memorial*

Creeping

5.0

5.1

8.0

10

A08-EBM

Colonial

5.7

3.4

8.7

14

BCD

Colonial

6.0

4.4

8.3

22

Penncross*

Creeping

7.0

5.2

6.3

21

Princeville*

Creeping

6.7

4.7

6.3

28

Greentime*

Colonial

5.0

4.3

8.5

20

Tiger II*

Colonial

6.0

4.4

8.8

23

A08-FT12

Creeping

5.7

4.3

8.7

18

PST-R9D7

Colonial

LSDǂ

5.7

4.2

8.5

23

1.0

0.8

1.1

7.0

Numerical ratings indicate seedling vigor, which is an estimate of ground cover and plant height during the early stages of seedling establishment (where 9 = greatest ground cover and plant height and 1 = very sparse cover and slow growth); genetic color (9 = darkest green color and 1 = yellow-green turf); tolerance to dollar spot (9 = no disease present and 1 = extensive disease symptoms and turf damage); and percent P. annua encroachment in plots at the end of the test period (0 = no P. annua cover and 100 = complete P. annua cover).

§

* Indicates cultivar is commercially available.

LSD = Least significant difference. Differences between two entries are statistically significant only if the LSD value, listed at the bottom of each column, is exceeded by the numerical difference between two entries. For example, if cultivar “A” is 1.0 unit higher in quality than cultivar “B,” then this difference is significant only if the LSD value is less than 1.0.

ǂ

Plots of bentgrass showing good density, texture, color, and uniformity.

10 Pennsylvania Turfgrass • Spring 2018

Penncross and Princeville ranked lowest in quality among the creeping bentgrasses (in large part due to their lower density and coarser texture).

Of the six colonial bentgrass cultivars evaluated in the 2008-2013 NTEP Fairway/Tee Test, only Greentime and Tiger II are commercially available.

Both of these cultivars received high to medium quality ratings during the first year of the test, but quality steadily declined over the next four years. The main reason for the decline in quality was colonization of plots with P. annua.

Seedling vigor Seedling vigor, an estimate of ground cover and plant height during the early stages of seedling establishment, was evaluated for all cultivars shortly after seeding in September of 2008.

Seedling vigor ratings were highest for Penncross, Princeville, T-1, Proclamation, Barracuda, and Benchmark DSR; however, thirteen other cultivars and selections had seedling vigor ratings very close to these six cultivars (Table 2).

Commercial cultivars that were slowest to establish in this test were Greentime, Memorial, and Pin-Up. By late October, all of the plots in this test showed complete turf cover and were able to tolerate weekly mowing.

Bentgrass genetic color Although genetic color of a cultivar does not influence the playability of bentgrass, it can make a difference in the aesthetic appeal of fairways and tees. The color of bentgrasses can be important in maintaining stand uniformity when blending two or more cultivars. Bentgrasses tend to segregate after a few seasons, and a dark-green cultivar blended with a light-green cultivar may lead to a patchy appearance of fairways and tees.

Genetic color ratings show that T-1 creeping bentgrass had the darkest green color of all entries in the 20092013 Bentgrass Fairway/Tee Test, closely followed by Benchmark DSR (Table 2).

The majority of commercial creeping bentgrasses exhibited a medium-tolight-green color, with color rating values ranging from 6.6 for Luminary

continued • Golf Course Notes

Bentgrass cultivars showing differences in dollar spot susceptibility.

to 4.7 for Princeville. The commercial colonial bentgrasses (Tiger II and Greentime) produced a yellow-green hue that appeared lighter green than the creeping bentgrasses. Although most people tend to favor dark-green over light-green turf, the yellow-green hue of P. annua tends to stand out more in darker-green bentgrass stands.

Differences in P. annua contamination in bentgrass plots. Plot on the left in foreground is Pin-Up creeping bentgrass and plot on right is Greentime colonial bentgrass.

Dollar spot tolerance Bentgrass cultivars differed in their susceptibility to dollar spot disease in this test. Most commercial creeping bentgrasses (Declaration, Proclamation, Benchmark DSR, Barracuda, 007, Pin-Up, Luminary, CY-2, L-93, and Memorial) and both commercial colonial bentgrasses (Tiger II and Greentime) showed very good tolerance to dollar spot during the 2008-2013 test period (Table 2). Authority, Pure Select, and Crystal Bluelinks showed intermediate tolerance to dollar spot; whereas, the least tolerant commercial cultivars were T-1, Penncross, and Princeville.

P. annua encroachment An important fairway/tee management strategy for golf course superintendents is the use of bentgrass cultivars that are aggressive enough to compete with P. annua. P. annua began to move into the 2008-2013 NTEP Fairway/Tee Test two years after establishment. By 2013, plots of some cultivars were more heavily infested than others. Commercial cultivars with the least amount of P. annua included Pin-Up, 007, Benchmark DSR, Barracuda, Declaration, Proclamation, Pure Select, CY-2, T-1, Luminary, and Spring 2018 • Pennsylvania Turfgrass 11

Golf Course Notes • continued

Authority. The greatest percentage of P. annua was detected in plots of Princeville, Tiger II, and Penncross.

Scalping damage on tee planted to a high-density cultivar of creeping bentgrass.

Other considerations As stated earlier in this article, some bentgrass cultivars are better suited for putting greens than for tees and fairways. Cultivars with extremely high tiller densities can become “puffy,” due to rapid thatch buildup when grown in fairways and tees. This can result in scalping and other poor mowing characteristics. Although thatch measurements were not collected at the University Park site, we did observe some scalping damage on Declaration, Proclamation, Benchmark DSR, and Pin-Up on one occasion during a warm, rainy period in 2013 (data available at ntep.org).

When using high-density cultivars for fairways and tees, be sure to monitor thatch levels and make provisions for verticutting and core aeration for thatch reduction.

One of the limitations to the use of colonial bentgrasses for fairways and tees in the mid-Atlantic region of the US is its susceptibility to brown patch disease. Although no brown patch data were collected at the University Park site, ratings from the New Jersey NTEP site indicated that colonial bentgrass entries ranked lower than most creeping bentgrasses, with respect to tolerance to brown patch (see ntep.org).

Summary

The results of the 2008-2013 test of fairway/tee bentgrasses reflect the response of cultivars to the management regime imposed at this site and environmental conditions in University Park.

Several commercial bentgrass cultivars used on golf courses in the US were not included in this test. Some of these cultivars were evaluated in previous NTEP tests, and data from these tests can be found on the NTEP website (ntep.org). A new NTEP bentgrass fairway/tee test was initiated in 2014 and contains some new commercial cultivars and experimental selections.

Hopefully, this test will reveal continued improvement of bentgrasses for golf courses in the mid-Atlantic region. 7

12 Pennsylvania Turfgrass • Spring 2018

Recent Event

THE 2018 eastern PA Turf

Conference Was Rejuvenated!

The

Pennsylvania Turfgrass Council (PTC) worked together with other green industry organizations to plan and promote the Eastern Pennsylvania Golf, Lawn, Landscape and Sports Turf Conference and Trade Show that was held on January 10, 2018, at the Shady Maple Conference Center in Lancaster County. Thanks to the Central Pennsylvania Golf Course Superintendents Association, the Lawn Care Association of Pennsylvania, the United States Golf Association, the Professional Grounds Management Society, the Philadelphia Association of Golf Course Superintendents, the Keystone Athletic Field Managers Organization, and Penn State Extension, the conference was informative and well-attended.

The PTC event was sponsored by Walker Supply, Arader Tree Service, Turf Equipment and Supply Company, Fisher and Son, Earthworks, Bayer, Aquatrols, Helena, Aqua-Aid, and Perdue AgriBusiness. Five hundred attendees packed the educational sessions, which awarded 28 pesticide credits and 0.4 GCSAA educational points; and the trade show, which featured 47 exhibitors.

Lunch at the famous Shady Maple Smorgasbord was incredible.

Preparation for the 2019 Eastern PA Turf Conference is underway now.

The Pennsylvania Turfgrass Council is collaborating with affiliated organizations again to develop an outstanding educational program and encourage vendor involvement in the trade show.

All proceeds from the conference go to support the PTC and turfgrass research at Penn State. Details will be announced at www.paturf.org this fall. 7 Spring 2018 • Pennsylvania Turfgrass 13

Between the Lines

Between the Lines Transition From Golf Course Superintendent to Athletic Field Manager

Photo by Dan Douglas

O

ver the past ten years, a number of golf course superintendents have moved into the world of athletic field management. C J Lauer was an assistant golf course superintendent in Maryland for ten years before becoming associate director of facilities at The Episcopal Academy. Pete Ramsey, superintendent at Range End Golf Club for twenty years, is now director of grounds for Messiah College. Scott Schukraft was the Huntsville Golf Club superintendent from 1982 to 2010 and now owns Elite Sports Turf and Landscape Management. They weighed in on their career transitions and provided insight for others who may be exploring turfgrass management options.

Transferable Skills

What we see on a fairway or on an athletic field is much the same: smooth green turf. Are the same skill sets required in both settings? When asked what experience from their golf course past was most helpful in their new roles, all three experts pointed to both their background in agronomy and their experience in fairway maintenance as a solid foundation for athletic field management. Most of the equipment and basic cultivation principles are similar, they agreed: If you can manage soil balance, mowing, aerification, and pest control on a golf course, you can apply and tweak that knowledge to conditions on a sports field.

Keystone Athletic Field Managers Organization 1451 Peter’s Mountain Road Dauphin, PA 17018-9504 www.KAFMO.org Email: KAFMO@aol.com 14 Pennsylvania Turfgrass • Spring 2018

The management skills these professionals acquired as golf course superintendents also transferred well to new settings. Scott Schukraft found his experience in financial and resource management valuable when embarking on his own sports turf/landscape management business. C J Lauer emphasized the importance of learning time management; while Pete Ramsey said, “No matter what the turf or use is, it still all comes down to people management and communication.”

New Challenges

But even seasoned turf-management professionals are bound to experience learning curves in a new setting.

Contact: Linda Kulp, Executive Secretary Phone: 717-497-4154 kulp1451@gmail.com

Contact: Dan Douglas, President Phone: 610-375-8469 x 212 KAFMO@aol.com

Schukraft mentioned differences in the construction of the fields themselves, from the clay base to ballfield-specific features, as challenging to someone from a golf-course background. Ramsey pointed out that sports turf requires much more renovation talent than golf fairways. Because athletic fields endure more wear and tear, they require more intensive overseeding and resodding than a golf course, where the emphasis is on preserving and maintaining turf.

“Sports turf is a different beast in the aspect of how a field is used,” Lauer explained. The “goal” on a golf green gets moved daily; but home plate or a pitcher’s mound cannot be moved, so wear patterns develop quickly and have to be addressed. He added that athletic fields also can be unforgiving--what would be a small issue on a golf course, like a leaky irrigation head, can quickly cause an entire sports field to be deemed unsafe and not playable.

Lack of resources is a challenge most managers have encountered. One expressed surprise at how little forethought goes into actual field construction versus what tile to use in the bathrooms of the athletic facility, for example. Decision makers can be reluctant to put money in the ground for field construction, but the resulting drainage issues can make a field unplayable and cost an organization thousands. This says it all when it comes to the frustration many athletic field managers share: “Someday the wrong storm sits over your facility, and you’re the one they come looking for.” However, even when tight resources are a given, the importance of player safety and comparative costs can be effective talking points in helping an organization adjust its spending priorities.

that he always enjoyed arriving early and observing the course just as the sun was beginning to rise. For Ramsey, the design is the thing that separates a golf course from other sports fields: “Most athletic fields on the surface look about the same. It’s their surroundings and amenities that give facilities their character,” he noted. “But golf course architecture is all about working with what nature gives you. If I see a property with rolling terrain and interesting features, I envision a golf hole laid right on top of it.”

Career Advice

Mentoring and hands-on learning are near the top of every experienced pro’s list of career advice for people just starting out or exploring their options.

Ramsey advised getting that four-year degree, with the understanding that it will only get an applicant in the door, and then finding a mentor who is willing to share their skill set.

Lauer agreed that aspiring turf

professionals should take advantage of every door that opens and “be a sponge.” He continued, “Don’t be afraid to make mistakes; they are always the best ways to learn a lesson. And don’t be afraid to work from the bottom up.

You need to complete your 50,000 hours before you are ready to take the helm of a facility.”

Career hopefuls also need to sit down and do some self-analysis, urged Schukraft. “Honestly try to answer the question of what is important to you and what you want now and five or ten years in the future . . . If waking up early, working long hours, including a lot of weekends under all weather conditions, are not things you enjoy, you may want to reconsider.”

He concluded that being in turf management is a tough job that requires a lot of dedication and perseverance. But all agree that, for the right person, there are many rewarding opportunities out there, both on the golf course and on the athletic field. 7

Looking Back

Each former golf course superintendent has favorite memories of his time in golf.

Lauer spoke of the perk of being able to carry some clubs in his cart and hit a few balls around the course or the putting green, while Schukraft recalled

Spring 2018 • Pennsylvania Turfgrass 15

Research Summary

Entomology

Lab News

The

The Pennsylvania Turfgrass Council (PTC) 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, Pennsylvania Turfgrass, or its editors. Likewise, the appearance of advertisers, or PTC members, does not constitute an endorsement of the products or services featured in this, past or subsequent issues of this publication. Copyright © 2018 by the Pennsylvania Turfgrass Council. Pennsylvania Turfgrass, is published quarterly. Subscriptions are complimentary to PTC members. Presorted standard postage is paid at Nashville, TN. Printed in the U.S.A. Reprints and Submissions: Pennsylvania Turfgrass, allows reprinting of material published here. Permission requests should be directed to the PTC. 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 37064, (615) 790-3718, Fax (615) 794-4524.

16 Pennsylvania Turfgrass • Spring 2018

2017 growing season provided adequate (if not excessive) moisture in many parts of the region, especially around critical times for pest development. Moistureloving pests, such as European crane flies, certain white grub species, and earthworms, kept the Turfgrass Entomology Laboratory busy. We traveled to multiple states to take advantage of conditions and generate much-needed data on their biology and management. August rainfall created an earlier-than-normal fall season for earthworm castings.

Worms were so problematic in central Pennsylvania that we were asked to hold an “earthworm summit” for superintendents and their greens committees at Centre Hills Country Club in February. Research trial results were presented, and a superintendent panel followed. We will continue to examine cultural practices to reduce castings in 2018.

Garrett Price joined the lab in January and will be pursuing a PhD in entomology. Garrett completed his masters at Purdue University in the summer of 2017 and transitioned into our laboratory for the end of grub season. His previous project characterized white grub gut microbes and their changes with age. Garrett likely will focus on ABW-microbe interactions to help develop novel controls, as well as better predict the ability for the insect to develop insecticide resistance.

Update submitted by Ben McGraw, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Turfgrass Entomology, Penn State University 7

Research Summary

Penn State Turf Updates John Paddock (4-year program, ‘97) purchased the company Dryject in 2016.

Paddock had been working at Dryject since 2010; his team manages 32 franchises worldwide and supports them with technical experience, equipment, and brand marketing. Dryject is always working on innovations for the turf industry.

Anthony Stockwell (Masters of Professional Studies in Turf Management. ‘16) is lecturing on Sports Turf at Hadlow College in the UK and is working at the Arsenal FC Emirates Stadium.

Ryan Hillert (4-year program, ‘14) started his own company, Turf Pro Solutions, in May 2017. Turf Pro Solutions does field renovations for little league complexes, colleges, and adult league fields. They also line fields for high schools and professional soccer teams.

Eddie Harbaugh (4-year program, ‘14) is now the sports field manager for the Philadelphia Eagles.

Jordan Barr (4-year program, ‘15) is now working as the Turf Services Manager at St. Edwards University in Austin, Texas.

Congratulations to the Summer 2017 Turf Graduates

Penn State Turfgrass Science Students Perform Well in STMA Competitions

T

his year’s National Sports Turf Managers Association Annual Conference recently was held in Fort Worth, TX. In addition to professors, Turfgrass staff, and Beaver Stadium grounds personnel, Penn State sent twelve students: eight from the four-year turf program and four two-year turf students.

These students traveled to the event to either compete in the SAFE Foundation’s Student Challenge or receive a SAFE Foundation Scholarship or both.

The 2018 competitors were (in alphabetical order) Nicholas J. Chamberlin, Nicholas J. Gess, David Alex Hendler, Ethan M. Hull, Andrew J. Josefoski, Nathaniel Leiby, Kevin D. Logan, Shawn R. Moore, Micah B. Osenbach, Ian M. Patterson, Alexander N. Schuler, and Michael E. Spencer. A special thanks to Dr. Andy McNitt for sponsoring the teams again this year!

The students spent much of their time attending conference seminars, visiting exhibitors in the trade show, and enjoying Fort Worth, TX. The four-year teams finished in fourth and sixth place, with almost all new team members. This bodes well for another great finish next year! For the four-year competition, the first three placed teams were Iowa State, Purdue, and Maryland. A job well done for the competition!

The students also want to thank Dr. Ben McGraw for organizing their preparations for the competition and the instructors who spent personal time working with the students as the competition approached. These included: John Kaminski, Pete Landschoot, Andy McNitt, Max Schlossberg, and Brad Jakubowski. 7

Associate Degree in Turfgrass Science and Management Tiffany Holley Drew Monogue Joshua Nethaway Tyler Wesseldyk Bachelor’s Degree in Turfgrass Science Jon Coster Lucas Edmisten Jonathan Giello John Hart Ian McKinnon Warren Watt Edwin Woodthorpe Eric Zwaska Masters of Professional Studies in Turfgrass Management Jonathan Nelson

A special congratulations goes out to senior Turfgrass science students Nicholas Chamberlin and John Betts for receiving SAFE Foundation Scholarships. They competed against students from other schools across the nation to receive their awards.

Congratulations also goes out to Kevin Logan, AJ Josefoski, Nick Gess, and Michael Spencer. These members of the two-year STMA student challenge team placed third in the two-year division of the STMA Collegiate Student Challenge.

Spring 2018 • Pennsylvania Turfgrass 17

Calendar of Events

June 19

KAFMO Field Day Penn State – Berks Campus Details at www.KAFMO.org

August 8

Penn State Field Days Penn State University State College, PA

November 13–15 Penn State Golf Turf Conference Nittany Lion Inn State College, PA

January 16

2019 Eastern Pennsylvania Golf, Lawn, Landscape and Sports Turf Conference and Trade Show Shady Maple Conference Center East Earl, PA

January 31

2019 Northeastern Pennsylvania Turf Conference and Trade Show (NETS) The Woodlands Inn & Resort, Wilkes Barre, PA

Advertiser Index

Aer-Core, Inc................................................. 5

FM Brown’s & Sons.................................... 11

Amvac Environmental Products... Back Cover

George E. Ley Co....................................... 18

Beam Clay.................................................. 16

Pennsylvania State University............... Inside Front Cover

www.aer-core.com

www.amvac-chemical.com

www.BEAMCLAY.com • www.PARTAC.com

www.gelcogolf.com

www.psu.edu

Coombs Sod Farms................................... 11 www.coombsfarms.com

Progressive Turf Equipment, Inc................. 7 www.progressiveturfequip.com

Covermaster, Inc.......................................... 5 www.covermaster.com

Quest Products Corp.......Inside Back Cover www.questproducts.us

CoverSports USA....................................... 15 www.coversports.com

Seedway, LLC............................................. 12 www.seedway.com

East Coast Sod & Seed............................. 18 www.eastcoastsod.com

Shreiner Tree Care...................................... 18 www.shreinertreecare.com

Ernst Conservation Seeds......................... 16 www.ernstseed.com

Smith Seed Services.................................... 6 www.smithseed.com

Fisher & Son Company, Inc......................... 3 www.fisherandson.com

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

18 Pennsylvania Turfgrass • Spring 2018

www.fmbrown.com

Walker Supply, Inc........................................ 7 www.walkersupplyinc.com