Journal of the Virginia Turfgrass Council | May/June 2009
18
14 14 Cover Story
A Safe Athletic Field — What it “Feels” Like Makes a Difference
12 Upcoming Events Mark Your Calendars and Hold These Dates!
22 DEPARTMENTS 6 Director’s Corner
from Tom Tracy, Ph.D.
8 Editor’s Perspective
from Mark Vaughn, CGCS
10 VTF Report
from Betty Parker
18 Applied Research Evaluation of Cool-Season Species for Naturalized Golf Course Roughs in VA
22 Sod Research Biosolids for Sod Production: An Introduction to VT’s USDA-Funded Project
4| VIRGINIA TURFGRASS JOURNAL May/June 2009 www.thevtc.org
11 News from Virginia Tech
Turf Club Competition Results
13 Industry News 26 Calendar of Events 26 Index of Advertisers
Director’s Corner
Tom Tracy, Ph.D. VTC Executive Director
A Fond Farewell to Our LongTime Treasurer
I
do not believe my column has ever focused on one person, but allow me to digress from the norm this one time by singing the praises of Kyle Richardson, a person who has contributed greatly to the Virginia Turfgrass Council. Kyle’s accomplishments are best summed up by the farewell words of former Virginia Governor Godwin. This governor served two terms: the first in the mid1960s as a Democrat and the second in the early 1970s as a Republican. His first term was characterized by economic prosperity and sweeping legislative changes that enhanced the lives of Virginians. The second term was harder: a chemical disaster at Hopewell (Kepone spill) closed much of the James River to commercial fishing and dominated the news; the effects of Watergate were still being felt; and he faced political opponents who were not there during his first term. His final speech to the General Assembly, given in 1978, has a line that describes Kyle’s leadership: “I would suggest that the real test of statesmanship is not how far we can ride an incoming tide, but how well we can keep the ship of state from running aground when that tide goes out.” Kyle was the treasurer of the VTC when I was hired, and he remained in that office until he left the Council in February to pursue a different career path. Kyle brought stability, logic and insight to the office of treasurer. He was always available for a telephone consultation and was very responsive to any and all who asked him questions. More than once, I called him to get his opinion on a financial issue. His advice was never wrong, and I learned to lean on his wisdom. Kyle’s leadership was shown in many ways, but two examples stand out: moving the conference from downtown Richmond to Fredericksburg and hiring Leading Edge Communications to produce our Journal. Moving the conference was not an easy decision. The VTC had a long-standing good relationship with Richmond hotels, and turfgrass professionals across the state perceived the Council as “that Richmond Group.” Kyle saw the benefit of moving forty miles northward to Fredericksburg, and he carefully weighed the financial pros and cons before giving his approval for the move. The decision has proved to be very wise because the move to Fredericksburg enabled the Council to better serve the entire state while being accessible to persons in northern Virginia and the District of Columbia. Prior to Leading Edge Communications, producing the bimonthly Virginia Turfgrass Journal was a constant challenge. Kyle’s input was vital in our decision to go with Leading Edge Communications. Now, we have a state-of-the-art, quality publication produced by a high-caliber company. Kyle left his position as director of grounds at The Homestead to become a financial advisor. He said we might see him again as a vendor at one of conferences! Kyle will be missed, but before he left, he spent time training his replacement, Brian Vincel of Spring Creek. Brian is a very capable person who is already showing his ability to follow in the path blazed by Kyle.
6| VIRGINIA TURFGRASS JOURNAL May/June 2009 www.thevtc.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 Rick Viancour, CGCS Golden Horseshoe Golf Club (757) 220-7489 Vice President Melissa Reynolds Dura Turf Service Corp. (804) 233-4972 Treasurer Brian Vincel, CGCS Spring Creek Golf Club (434) 566-2580 Past President Stephen Glass University of Richmond (804) 289-8605 VTC DIRECTORS Patrick Connelly Sam Doak Frank Flannagan Gil Grattan Vince Henderson Jeff Holliday, CGCS Steve Smith VTC ADVISORY MEMBERS OF THE BOARD Mike Goatley, Ph.D. (Chair) Shawn Askew, Ph.D. Jeffrey Derr, Ph.D. Erik Ervin, Ph.D. Brandon Horvath, Ph.D. Rajandra Waghray, Ph.D. Rod Youndman, Ph.D. HISTORIAN John Shoulders CSES Retired EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR/ DIRECTOR OF PROGRAMS Tom Tracy, Ph.D. (757) 681-6065 VIRGINIA TURFGRASS FOUNDATION Betty Parker (757) 574-9061
Journal of the Virginia Turfgrass Council |7
Editor’s Perspective
Gotta Get Smarter about Playing This Game Mark Vaughn, CGCS Virginia Turfgrass Journal Editor
ere at World VTC Publishing Headquarters, we just got back from our annual month-long planning retreat to Aruba. We were all sitting around, rubbing our trusty eight ball, sweating out the details of this year’s publishing calendar in our poolside cabana, when the ideas began to ooze like algae after a mid-summer rain. The discussion turned to the firestorm of negativity sweeping across our country. We all agreed that bad publicity may be new to the financial sector, but it is nothing new to our business — we’ve been fighting it for 8–10 years. Later, it was suggested (I believe by Ingrid, our Swedish intern, during one of our tanning-oil-application sessions) that we mount an aggressive GREEN industry campaign to counter our perception by others. And life really is all about perception now, isn’t it? So… Borrowing a page from Gatorade and their “G” ads, we begin our “C” media blitz with full-page ads in major newspapers (before they all disappear) with nothing but the letter “C” in bright green print. During commercial breaks from the nightly news, sporting events and highly rated shows, a quick 2- to 3-second flash of the green “C” appears and vanishes. The speculative frenzy is launched! “Hey, Maybel, did you just see what I thought I just seen?” “Was it a big green ‘C’ Fred?” “Yep. Wonder what it means?” “I don’t rightly know, Fred. Probably some guv’ment b.s. by our new Prez tryin’ to turn us all into Communists. I told you not be a’votin’ fer him.” “You plumb crazy, Maybel. If he’in was doing somethin’ like at, it would be a RED ‘C’ woman. Beside, he’uns one of them Socialists, not a Commie.” Masters officials lend the considerable clout of their event by striping several “C”s on every fairway, which can be clearly seen during the telecast. Top professional golfers (who, let’s face it, are the MAJOR beneficiaries of the games’ popularity) buy in, and the green “C” pops up on bags, shirts and hats. Tiger, Phil and others also discuss “C” in very veiled terms for 30-second ads. Next, the terminology begins to change. Again, this is nothing new, but it has been used cleverly by “causes” for the last 30 years. What if, when you turned on a golf telecast “Dr.” Johnny Miller said, “The acclimation of those sunlight-processing mini solar panels may cause this putt to break left. What do you think, Raj?” “Well, John, you’re absolutely right. And I must say, the Supt. has this carbon-remediation field in excellent condition. You just know, on this bright, sunny day, those little CO2 assimilators are on maximum intake. We’ve got enough oxygen release going on here today to purify the air in L.A. for 20 years. By the way, John, did you notice the flock of California condors in the trees left of #14?” Continuing on, University research turns away from dollar spot, poa annua, cutworms, yadda yadda and instead focuses on green “C” issues: inputs vs. carbon assimilation, CO2 negation, planting grass vs. planting trees, the “wonderful” photosynthetic and waterfiltering qualities of artificial turf, concrete, bare ground, etc., etc. Just sit back and watch the legislative funding from Richmond and Washington roll in! Hey, if the corn boys can sell ETHANOL, with its wonderful input vs. energy output ratio, to the brilliant minds in D.C., what would they do for a GREEN technology that actually works??? Hate to get serious on you here at the end, but for too long our industry has played the cards we hold all wrong. Instead of paddling against the tide, why not turn our board around and ride the wave that is cresting on the horizon and will soon crash down on this land. We can do this, people. We just have to be smarter about how we play the game.
H
8| VIRGINIA TURFGRASS JOURNAL May/June 2009 www.thevtc.org
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 Š2009 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 Franklin, 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) 7903718, 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 |9
VTF Report
Solid Advice from a
Departing Friend Betty Parker VTF Manager
opened my emails a few weeks ago to find the letter from Dr. Brandon Horvath that most of you by now know about. In May, Dr. Horvath will leave the Hampton Roads AREC Station to take a position at the University of Tennessee in Knoxville. Indeed, as Tom Tracy entitled the announcement, Virginia’s loss is Tennessee’s gain. Dr. Brandon assures me that the research supported by you, Virginia’s turfgrass industry, will be completed as planned. Dr. Erik Ervin will continue as the primary researcher in the project entitled “Organic Matter Dilution Programs for Sand-Based Putting Greens in Virginia,” and Dr. Jeff Derr will ensure that “Integrated Pest Management for Tall Fescue and Bermudagrass” stays on track. In his “Open Letter to Friends,” Dr. Horvath stressed the importance of being involved in local turfgrass organizations and, in general, thinking about what each of us can do to make our industry better and stronger. I asked Dick Fisher for his thoughts on the tough road we are all trudging. “Perilous times, indeed, for everyone,” he commented. “Layoffs, downsizing, mergers and cutbacks have touched all of our lives, in and out of the turfgrass business. Most people have so many balls in the air that it is truly a challenge just to get through each day. Most of us are keeping our heads down and slogging away at whatever issue comes up.” But out of peril comes opportunity. I suggest that we all need to take a frank assessment of where we are in life and look for ways to contribute to the success or survival of others in our community. In several occasions in my life/career, the right influence at the right time made a huge difference to me. This has taken the form of caring advice, taking one thing off my plate so I could deal with other issues, a reality check or just letting me vent. We can all do these things if we make the effort to stay connected with each other. Now is the time to use our networking connectivity to really help people, our industry, our associations, our families and ourselves. My point is to make the time to call the superintendent next door, work on association committees, GO TO MEETINGS, stay in touch with friends, offer advice, seek advice and, most of all, remember that we’re all in this together. Don’t let the doom and gloom of the six o’clock news become your excuse for not being involved or not utilizing what we do have to elevate our profession. It is difficult when your employer does not recognize the invaluable support that professional organizations provide to their members, but it is our job to educate them. More than that, let us look at the tools we have gained in communication over the past 20 years that allow us to instantly communicate and network with one another without leaving our office or even the cab of our pickup truck. That cell phone connects you to the professional friend up the road or to the salesman who acts as the physical connection between you and friends in the industry. That laptop on your desk, or on the seat of your truck, provides instant information just a Google away or through an email from an informative colleague. In the midst of the crisis around us, let us not be part of the problem, but part of the solution. Talk, communicate, be a good listener and, above all, offer a helping hand. We are all in this together. Get involved in your industry. The Research Golf Tournament is Monday, June 8, at Wintergreen’s Stoney Creek Course.
I
10| VIRGINIA TURFGRASS JOURNAL May/June 2009 www.thevtc.org
News from VT
VIRGINIA TECH TURF CLUB PLACES WELL at Two National Competitions By Erik Ervin, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Crop and Soil Environmental Sciences Department, Virginia Tech
The
Virginia Tech Turf Club sent nine members to compete in the Student Challenge at the 2009 Sports Turf Manager’s Association (STMA) Conference on January 16 in San Jose, California. All teams enjoyed success in the competition. One four-man team placed in the top 10 of the four-year student competition, and two teams placed in the top 5 of the two-year student competition. Congratulations to all of those who competed in the Student Challenge! Many thanks to the Virginia chapter of STMA, the Virginia Turfgrass Council and the Virginia’s Turf Association for their significant financial support of the teams this year and to coaches, Nick McKenna and Sam Doak. The Virginia Tech Turf Club also sent four members to compete in the Turf Bowl at the Golf Course Superintendent’s Association of America Conference on February 6 in New Orleans, Louisiana. This team of rookies did well, placing 32nd out of 84 teams. A Purdue University team placed 1st this year, with Iowa State taking 2nd place. Many thanks to the Virginia chapter of STMA, the Virginia Turfgrass Council and the Virginia’s Turf Association for their significant financial support of the teams this year and to coach Dr. Erik Ervin.
VT’s STMA competition teams: (back row, left to right) Zach Chapin, Chris Webb, Logan Horne, Jeremy Atkins and Brett Brubaker; (front row, left to right) Thomas Kirsch, Dan Clayton, Jeremy Harvey and Ryan Holbrook.
VT’s GCSAA competition team: (left to right) Derik Cataldi, Ryan McNamara, Ryan Johnson and Andrew Desing.
Journal of the Virginia Turfgrass Council |11
Upcoming Events
VTC Research Golf Tournament Monday, June 8 $20,000 SHOOTOUT! Wintergreen’s Stoney Creek Course | Wintergreen, VA Special this year will be a shootout for $20,000! Winners of net, gross, longest drive, putting contests, etc., will have a chance for the big dollars in addition to their pro-shop gift certificates. Start time is 10 a.m. THIS EVENT SOLD OUT LAST YEAR, AND TEAMS WERE TURNED AWAY, so register early! Call the VTC office at 757-464-1004.
Pesticide Licensing Opportunities Organized by the VTC
VSTMA Annual Field Days
June 16 Pesticide Recertification Williamsburg, VA
June 23
(Virginia Sports Turf Managers Association)
Pesticide Recertification Staunton, VA
June 16–17, 2009
November 4–6 Pesticide Certification Training (3B) and Exam Henrico, VA For more information, call the VTC office at 757-464-1004.
12| VIRGINIA TURFGRASS JOURNAL May/June 2009 www.thevtc.org
Woodberry Forest School Forest, VA
Industry News
Horvath Accepts Position at University of Tennessee
Dr.
Brandon J. Horvath (assistant professor in Virginia Tech’s Dept. of Plant Pathology, Physiology and Weed Science) announced his decision to accept a faculty position in turfgrass science at the University of Tennessee in Knoxville. He will relocate to Knoxville this May. Dr. Horvath joined the turf team at Virginia Tech in 2006 and served as the team’s lead turf pathologist. He has conducted multiple research projects on turf diseases at Tech’s Hampton Roads Research and Extension Center. “This is an excellent opportunity for me to be back on a campus and become an integral part of the turfgrass teaching program,” Dr. Horvath said, explaining his decision. “It will also be good for my family, as we will be closer to our families.”
Journal of the Virginia Turfgrass Council |13
Cover Story
14| VIRGINIA TURFGRASS JOURNAL May/June 2009 www.thevtc.org
Cover Stor y continued
By Mike Goatley Jr., Ph.D., Extension Turfgrass Specialist, Virginia Tech
challenges associated with having safe, highquality athletic fields in this region are many: a transition-zone climate, limited venues and the demand for often almost-non-stop use by a host of different sports teams, and limited budgets that simply can’t meet fieldmaintenance needs. For better or worse, our youth possess the confidence of “indestructibility” (my apologies for creating a new word, but you know what I mean… we possessed it once, too), and those who are athletes give very little attention to sports-field conditions as they relate to their safety. Such is the beauty of youth. I remember the practice fields and even game fields that I played on as a youth in a rural community, and thinking back on them now, I realize they weren’t much more than mowed cow pastures. The development of greatly improved artificial-turfgrass systems has helped tremendously in delivering safe fields, but many people have the false belief that these fields are the solution to unreal expectations of “high-traffic and zero-maintenance systems.” Over time, an improperly installed or maintained artificial field can take on the surface characteristics of a parking lot. Also, while the playing conditions of real turfgrass fields have improved through research, development and better education and understanding of the importance of — and strategies in — delivering safe fields, you still don’t have to look far to find plenty of examples of unsafe fields.
The
Meet Blox Daugherty A few years ago, I had the pleasure of meeting Blox Daugherty when
he participated in the Virginia Turfgrass Short Course. Blox is a highly educated man with an engaging personality, and I quickly learned that he tells it like it is — no beating around the bush with Mr. Daugherty! Blox has many years of plant and soil science experience in production agriculture, and he is a Certified Crop Advisor. He has over 30 years of experience in agribusiness and a forestry degree from the University of Maine; he practiced law for seven years (with a law degree from the University of South Carolina), spent six years in the Navy, farmed for eight years, has worked for Southern States and Ciba, and is currently working as a consultant with Dow. Blox also has a true passion for soccer, having coached three high school teams and having served his favorite sport for 13 years as a referee. He has umpired soccer matches for players of highly varying skills (youth leagues all the way up to a professional match) on playing surfaces of highly varying quality. What brought Blox to our short course was his desire to merge his understanding of the plant and soil sciences of production agriculture into turfgrass-management programs that can be used to deliver safe athletic fields. Blox has taken it upon himself to be a voice for safe athletic fields at the high school level. I want to share his perspective on field safety, since he has a rather unique background (and perspective) compared to most turfgrass industry professionals.
Blox’s take on safe fields I asked Blox how he assesses a field in preparation for a game. He said he is not particularly interested in its looks but instead focuses almost exclusively on its “feel.” Earlier this
spring, he was on a field that was maybe 50% barren of grass, and yet it was an acceptable playing surface to him. It was soft and smooth. Aesthetically pleasing? No. But suitable for a good game and safe for the athletes? Absolutely. “Green can be deceiving,” he points out. “I’ve been on fields that, from the stands, were some of the prettiest, greenest fields you could see, but once you got on them and ran up and down them a few times, you realized how clumpy the grass was. These clumps are what many of us referees refer to as ‘ankle breakers,’ and I can’t tell you how many injuries I’ve seen because of these. I saw an athlete tear an ACL due to his foot catching a grass clump, and there wasn’t a player within 10 yards of him. Folks are too hung up on color… some of the best playing fields are weed-free, dormant bermudagrass.” Blox also cites surface hardness as a major contributor to unsafe fields. “Whereas low-density turf fields can still be safe and soft when sufficiently moist, these fields can be extremely dangerous when dry and hard. When players’ cleats can’t penetrate a surface, they are going to slip; it is like playing on asphalt,” he explains. “Surface hardness is often not a permanent condition because as soon as it rains, fields can become reasonably playable. However, field moisture should be addressed days before the game, not minutes before. On bare, compacted fields, players fall on these concrete-like soils, and they simply don’t get up.”
Soccer-field specifics When Blox arrives at a high school for a game, he runs up and down the field several times to do two things: loosen up and assess playing
Journal of the Virginia Turfgrass Council |15
Cover Stor y continued
Why so many problems at the high school level?
The dormant bermudagrass base of this spring soccer field would be a much safer playing surface than the clumpy ryegrass seen from an inadequate effort in fall overseeding.
characteristics. “Other than field hockey and lacrosse, no sport is so dependent on turf cutting height, surface smoothness and plant density as soccer,” he comments. “The requirements for a soccer field are very different from those for a field that was used last fall for football. Soccer is truly a player’s game — it has no time outs, and coaches have little influence. The soccer rulebook is very small compared to that of baseball or football.” I’m not a soccer junkie, and I really get interested only when the World Cup is played. But Blox was quick to educate me. “If you give the game a chance, it’s a beautiful sport,” he says. “It’s played constantly on one foot, and good footing is an absolute necessity for crisp cuts and proper passes. A quality field allows players to properly challenge their opponents for possession
of the ball. You rarely have a good game on a bad field because players must make up for field deficiencies by playing more aggressively. This leads to more yellow cards and more fights. I bet you never thought about field quality leading to fights, did you, Goatley?” He’s right, and he has a point. Blox said that the extreme variability in soccer-field quality at the high school level is very frustrating for players because the skills that make soccer such a great sport are of limited importance. He has gone as far as warning a high school athletic director that if certain maintenance aspects were not corrected on the field, he would suspend the next game he umpired on that field. The corrections were made (and the AD asked the head of officials to make sure that Blox never umpired a game again at that school!).
16| VIRGINIA TURFGRASS JOURNAL May/June 2009 www.thevtc.org
One important factor, Blox says, “Folks don’t understand the difference between a soccer field and a football field. You can play 10 to 20 soccer matches on a field at a suitable moisture level before you might match the wear attributed to one game of football. The players are smaller, cleats are smaller, and there is no pushing or shoving repeatedly from a designated line of scrimmage.” The second factor is, he believes, a simple lack of knowledge in basic maintenance practices. “Everyone seems to know an awful lot about growing grass until it comes time to actually grow it,” he wryly comments. “Having a basic program for fertility, cultivation and weed control can make the difference between acceptable or dangerous fields. I know that most high schools don’t have their own aerifiers, but who says they have to own one? Why not pitch in with area schools and buy a machine to share. This seems like a pretty commonsense approach.” Blox recently had a chance to address a county school board about field-maintenance requirements. “I used the three-legged stool analogy for them,” he comments. “One leg is the field use — how much, how often, under what conditions. The second leg is the maintenance program — do you have one? And the third leg is the soil type and field design. Does it have adequate surface drainage? Now, any discrepancies in the legs make for a pretty useless stool, and it is the same for your field. The legs must be in balance.” He further told me that of the three items that he’s usually told are lacking in field maintenance — money, manpower and knowledge — the biggest limitation in field management at the high school level is knowledge. Some schools with pretty small budgets
Cover Stor y continued
have some great playing fields because someone cares AND knows what they are doing. Blox cites the fields in Frederick County (Winchester, VA) as some of the best he sees each year. The fields are maintained by the local parks and recreation staff in a partnership where the fields are sometimes used for special events or tourneys. This allows the high schools to utilize the expertise of some really knowledgeable people. Some of the other ways that Box has helped school systems is through advice on fundraising activities by booster clubs to support field maintenance. “This just takes a little organization and initiative, and maybe a little education on why field maintenance is so important,” he says. “And I remind them that they can’t forget the requirements of Title IX — the girl’s soccer team deserves every bit the quality field as the men’s football team.”
there will then suddenly be a great deal of interest in field safety. Perhaps the PCI can become the tool to get us moving in that direction and better define the standard duty of care.” I commend Blox for what he has done so far and what he wants to do in the future,
and I hope to help him achieve these lofty goals. However, out of all the things we can learn from Blox’s unique perspective on field safety, quality and playability, he sums it up plainly: “It’s not what it looks like; it’s what it FEELS like that makes the difference.”
The legalities of safety Finally, I asked Blox to tell me a little about his perception of playing fields from his perspective as a former trial lawyer. “You have to consider the standard duty of care,” he says. “Negligence would be a failure to live up to this standard.” I then asked Blox how he thought STMA’s recently released Playing Conditions Index (PCI) as a field-assessment tool might help define these standards. “It definitely would be a way to assign some quantitative values that administrators and parents might finally understand as it relates to field safety,” he points out. “I desperately want to get my foot in the door with the Virginia High School League to take the lead in field safety. I’ve asked them about tracking turf-related injuries, but got nowhere. You can bet, though, if someone gets hurt on a field,
Journal of the Virginia Turfgrass Council |17
Applied Research
Evaluation of Cool-Season Species
for Naturalized Roughs in Virginia By Erik Ervin, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Crop and Soil Environmental Sciences Department, Virginia Tech common trend on golf courses over the last decade has been to expand the acreage of non-mowed rough areas to accomplish a number of goals, such as: • savings on labor and gas due to less primary rough mowed • reductions of fertilizer, pesticide and water input • enhancement of wildlife diversity • enhancement of the golfing experience in terms of aesthetics and playability This last goal is especially important when planning, establishing and maintaining these naturalized areas. They must remain attractive and playable — otherwise, slowing of play and excessive golfer complaints will turn your efforts from the positive to the negative. Thus, creating naturalized areas by just not mowing the resident tall fescue or other turfgrass species often fails.
A
Our research The objective of the research reported here was to intentionally establish various candidate species with ultra-low seeding rates and compare their postestablishment aesthetics and playability.
18| VIRGINIA TURFGRASS JOURNAL May/June 2009 www.thevtc.org
In October 2005, six cool-season grass species were broadcast seeded — at rates 10 to 20 times less than those recommended for mowed turfgrasses — onto prepared silty clay loam at the Turfgrass Research Center in Blacksburg. These rates were all less than 1 lb. per 1,000 square feet and are listed in Table 1. Previous research and experience with un-mowed fine fescue areas had taught us that merely cutting the recommended rates in half still resulted in areas of excessive density that lodged, swallowed balls and required excessive bailing, sweeping, raking or burning each year. Since we used 10' X 10' plots, it was easiest for us to hand seed these ultra-low rates. For larger golf course areas, my best suggestion would be to use a hydro-seeder in an attempt to uniformly apply such low rates. Maintenance inputs were kept to a minimum, but included the following: • 1 lb. N, P, K per 1,000 square feet at seeding; 0.5 lb. N in April 2006, 2007 and 2008 • preemergent herbicide at 1x rate in early April 2006, 2007 and 08 and October 2006 and 2007
Applied Research continued
Table 1. Seeding rates of the varieties tested and various performance data for mature stands of candidate grass species for naturalized un-mowed golf course rough areas.
ENTRY
SEEDING RATE/ 1000 SQ. FT.
JUNE 08 SEEDHEAD HEIGHT (IN.)
GAP WEDGE ESCAPE (YARDS)1
PLAYABILITY X AESTHETIC INDEX2
Tall Fescue blend
0.6 lbs.
33" a3
40 yds. c
103
‘Harpoon’ hard fescue
0.3 lbs.
26" b
48 yds. c
125
‘SR 3210’ blue fescue
0.3 lbs.
24" b
59 yds. b
127
‘Midnight’ Kentucky bluegrass
0.2 lbs.
28" ab
66 yds. b
118
‘Fire & Ice’ hybrid bluegrass
0.2 lbs.
22" b
89 yds. a
164
VA wildrye
0.3 lbs.
32" a
30 yds. c
63
Tall fescue mowed check
6.0 lbs.
None, 2.5"
99 yds. a
NA
Golf balls were dropped randomly in each plot and hit with a 52-degree gap wedge by Dr. Ervin. Numbers are the average of six balls. This Index was calculated by multiplying final June 2008 aesthetic quality rating by 10 and then adding this number to the gap wedge escape yards. A higher number is preferred. 3 Numbers followed by letters that are the same in each column are not significantly different at a 95% probability level. 1 2
• postemergent herbicide once each spring and fall to clean up broadleaf weeds • mowing to 4" each October The plots received minimal use of nitrogen and no supplemental irrigation (except during establishment), which kept the stands thin and playable, while the spring and fall pre- and post-emergent herbicide applications provided enough weed control to produce acceptable aesthetics.
greater cover in the first year. Note here that while much of the soil was covered by these grasses, shoot density remained quite low, with minimal overlap or crowding of tillers in these plots. By the second year (2007), percent cover ranged from 60% to 90%, with the hybrid bluegrass having the highest cover. By the third year, the blue and hard fescues had caught up with the hybrid bluegrass, with all three providing excellent plot uniformity.
Results
Grass species ratings
Even at these ultra-low seeding rates, all species achieved greater than 50% cover by the end of the first spring (Figure 1, page 21). Hybrid bluegrass, Virginia wildrye and tall fescue filled in the fastest, achieving 70% or
For the rest of the article, I will discuss each species in order of least acceptable to most, with main reference to the playability X aesthetic index that I developed from the final set of collected data (Table 1).
Journal of the Virginia Turfgrass Council |19
Applied Research continued
Virginia Wild Rye
Tall Fescue Blend
‘Midnight’ Kentucky Bluegrass
‘Harpoon’ Hard Fescue
‘SR3210’ Blue Fescue
‘Fire & Ice’ Texas Bluegrass
20| VIRGINIA TURFGRASS JOURNAL May/June 2009 www.thevtc.org
Applied Research continued
Aesthetic quality of naturalized turfs
Late-spring percent cover of naturalized turfs 100
8
90
7
80
5 = acceptable
6
70
Tall fescue Hard fescue Blue fescue Ky blue Hybrid blue VA wildrye
60 50 40 30
Tall fescue Hard fescue Blue fescue
5 4 3
Ky blue Hybrid blue
2
VA wildrye
20 1
10
0
0 2006
2007
2008
May
Aug
June
Figure 1. Percent cover of turf varieties for naturalized un-mowed golf course roughs in the late spring for three years following establishment.
Figure 2. Aesthetic quality of candidate grasses for naturalized un-mowed golf course roughs in May 07, Aug 07, and June 08 following an October 05 establishment.
Virginia wildrye (Elymus virginicus) is a native cool-season perennial grass that prefers moist, fertile and heavier soils. It is often used as a palatable and nutritious pasture grass and grows to three feet tall. It was included in this trial as one of our only truly native cool-season grass choices for Virginia. It germinated readily and provided good cover via tillering. However, it is very coarse, upright and pale green and therefore did not provide an acceptable unmowed rough. It had the worst index of 63 because of poor aesthetics and very tall shoots, from which escape was almost impossible. It should only be considered for far out-of-play areas or hazards.
only 48 yards (Table 1). Hard fescue, if managed with almost no irrigation or nitrogen, can provide a very attractive and playable naturalized rough. ‘Harpoon’ was released in 2007 and is available from Cascade International Seed and Jonathan Green.
Tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea, Southern lawn blend) had the next lowest index of 103, mostly due to its height and coarseness of texture. While I could hit my gap wedge 99 yards from tall fescue mowed at 2.5," I could average only 40 yards from the un-mowed, almost 3' tall plots (Table 1). Flowering tall fescue can be attractive, but it must be kept exceedingly thin to provide any playability. Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis ‘Midnight’), when managed in this minimalist way, provided a thin and mediumlow stand that gave improved playability (118 index) but worse aesthetic quality relative to tall fescue. Compact-type Kentucky bluegrasses like ‘Midnight’ appear to be able to provide an acceptable naturalized stand, but they would most likely require glyphosate wicking of invading bunches of tall fescue and perennial ryegrass. Hard fescue (Festuca trachyphylla ‘Harpoon’) finished with a very good index of 125. Hard fescue is a very attractive (Figure 2) un-mowed grass that did not get too tall under these low-maintenance conditions. It did, however, get fairly thick by the third season, restricting my gap wedge average escape distance to
Blue fescue (Festuca glauca ‘SR3210’): This variety was commercially available from Seed Research of Oregon in 2007 and is a blue fescue that was selected specifically for un-mowed areas in the mid-Atlantic. Most blue fescues are sold as clumpy ornamentals, but this variety formed a uniform turf. Its bluish color and wispy seedheads gave it a very attractive naturalized look, plus it was a bit more forgiving than its hard fescue cousin, allowing me to advance the ball an average of 59 yards. It finished with the second highest index of 128 and should be seriously considered for your naturalized rough areas in Virginia. Hybrid bluegrass (Poa pratensis x arachnifera ‘Fire & Ice’): Hybrid bluegrasses are crosses between Kentucky and Texas bluegrasses. Texas bluegrasses have rhizomes and are inherently deeper-rooted than Kentucky. ‘Fire & Ice’ is a recent commercial release from Turf Merchants and did very well in this low-input trial. It established quicker than ‘Midnight’ (Figure 1), but it stayed shorter. Its uniformity and overall aesthetic quality was also much better than ‘Midnight’ (Figure 2). The look of this hybrid bluegrass was not as showy, in terms of seedheads, as the fine fescues, but its lack of tillering thickness allowed for a gap wedge escape average of 89 yards. Hitting a ball into it was still penal, while allowing the ball to be easily found and knocked back into play. All of these factors gave it the highest aesthetic x playability index of 164. The thinner, shorter appearance of an unmown rough of ‘Fire & Ice’ may not be to everyone’s liking, but consider giving it a try. Journal of the Virginia Turfgrass Council |21
Sod Research The following is a brief synopsis of the research proposal that was funded for $485,000 over four years through the USDA Specialty Crops Research Initiative. These funds are shared by the research groups at Virginia Tech and the University of Wisconsin. We will grow four consecutive sod crops beginning in August 2009 to study the use of biosolids as an alternative to mineral fertilizer and as an offset to soil loss during harvest. production makes up an important fraction of U.S. specialty crops. The demand for sod has grown rapidly and will continue to grow as urban and suburban areas encroach into formerly rural lands. According to the 2002 USDA Census of Agriculture, 2,124 sod production farms were operating in 2002 (USDA, 2004), up 25% from 1997. During that same time period, sod sales more than doubled. Continued rapid growth in sod-production land area and sales is anticipated in the forth-coming 2007 census. While the growing demand for sod is beneficial for the specialty crops industry in the U.S., rising production and shipping costs have suppressed grower profitability. In addition, a recent USDA-NRCS report indicates that sod production may not be sustainable, as initial calculations estimate that soil loss using conventional practices exceeds tolerable limits by an order of magnitude or more.
Sod
The upside of using biosolids According to the EPA, approximately seven million tons (dry weight) of biosolids are produced in the U.S. each year. Land application of these biosolids is becoming increasingly difficult as elevated soil P levels from the application sites are implicated in increased runoff P losses, which contribute to declining surface-water quality in the U.S. Alternative and innovative uses of biosolids that could alleviate this growing land-application shortage would be attractive to municipalities and state governments faced with meeting federally imposed TMDLs. Sod is a highly perishable product with a “shelf life� of less than 24 to 36 hours. Consequently, sod production needs to occur near the urban areas in which it is used. Biosolids-producing wastewatertreatment plants are also located in primarily urban areas. The close natural proximity of wastewater-treatment facilities and sod-production areas offers a unique opportunity to amend sod-producing soil with biosolids, thereby potentially conserving soil while providing an ideal avenue for land application of biosolids. Because sod is not a food crop, human exposure to any potentially putative contaminants (such as heavy metals or pathogens, which may exist in biosolids) is minimized. In addition, because the surface layer of soil is exported every one to two years, biosolids use for sod production offers the potential to reduce or eliminate the buildup of undesirably high levels of nutrients such as phosphorus or contaminants in production fields.
The downside of using biosolids Several barriers exist to prevent the use of biosolids for sod production. First, use of biosolids must be economically feasible before sod producers can be expected to consider such a production system. Transportation of biosolids from wastewater-treatment plant to farm is a major cost associated with use of biosolids. In some cases, the municipality may pay for the transportation; in other cases, the cost may be shared with the grower.
22| VIRGINIA TURFGRASS JOURNAL May/June 2009 www.thevtc.org
Photo by Tricia Roberts, Alabama Turfgrass Association.
Sod Research continued
By Erik Ervin, Ph.D., and Greg Evanylo, Ph.D., Virginia Tech and Doug Soldat, Ph.D., and John Stier, Ph.D., University of Wisconsin
Journal of the Virginia Turfgrass Council |23
Sod Research continued
The transportation costs may, however, be more than offset if biosolids can be shown to provide the following benefits: (1) elimination or reduction of herbicide applications and associated labor/fuel usage during their application, (2) reduction or elimination of costly fertilizers and associated labor/fuel usage during their application and/or (3) decreased production time, allowing for more sod to be grown and sold in a given period of time. Sod growers have questioned if quality standards can be met for sod grown with biosolids compared to soilgrown sod. Growers will also need to be shown that routine addition of biosolids will not negatively affect the physical, chemical or biological properties of the soil.
Our planned research We have developed a trans-disciplinary, multi-state proposal that seeks to improve the economic and longterm sustainability of sod production by growing sod on biosolids in production fields. In addition, identifying a viable biosolids-based sod-production system will create a potentially important avenue for the beneficial use and dispersal of biosolids from municipalities. This proposal directly addresses legislatively mandated focus areas by seeking to identify and address changes in disease and insect pest pressure associated with biosolids-based sod-production systems and by making a concerted effort to improve production efficiency, productivity and profitability over the long term for U.S. sod producers. The project will also compare the effects of the fertility treatments (i.e., anaerobically digested and dewatered biosolids, biosolids compost and synthetic fertilizer) on carbon sequestration in soils where sod is grown and removed regularly. This is an important issue affecting greenhouse gas emissions. The test will be conducted on two farms, one each in Virginia (Woodward Turf) and Wisconsin (Paul’s Tree and Turf). Biosolids will be surface applied and incorporated via tillage prior to seeding. Biosolids application rates will be applied at the agronomic P rate (variable depending on material), the agronomic N rate or 50% greater than the agronomic N rate (agronomic N rates are 5 lbs. M-1 for bluegrass and 4 lbs. M-1 for tall fescue). In addition to the biosolids-based systems, a conventional sod-production treatment will be included, which will duplicate the sod grower’s practices in Virginia and Wisconsin. At each location, the plots will be large enough so that all operations (biosolids application, tillage, seeding, harvesting, etc.) can be performed using the sod producer’s own equipment. This will be important for demonstrating the practicality of the proposed biosolids-based production systems. The plots will be established in late summer, which is the most common seeding time for sod grown in Wisconsin and Virginia.
24| VIRGINIA TURFGRASS JOURNAL May/June 2009 www.thevtc.org
Several agronomic parameters will be evaluated, including establishment, clipping yield, sod tensile strength, rooting strength and turfgrass color. Sod tensile strength (the force required to cause complete breakage of a piece of sod) is a measurement that directly correlates with harvesting and handling quality. This will be measured at three intervals following seeding (9, 11, and 13 months in Wisconsin and 6, 8 and 10 months in VA, the differences owing to the different turf-production systems and climates). Sod rooting strength will be measured for sod from each production system at the time of harvest. Sod from each plot will be placed in rooting frames on top of bare mineral soil to simulate the sodding of a new area. The pieces will be irrigated daily for one week and then weekly thereafter. The force required to pull the sod piece out of the rooting frame will be recorded weekly for three weeks. At the conclusion of the study, a complete economic analysis will be conducted to identify the costs associated with each of the production systems.
Soil-loss assessment With each harvest of sod, a certain amount of soil is removed and exported with the sod. In response to the recent NRCS concern that soil loss associated with sod production is an unsustainable practice, another project component was designed to collect accurate measurements of soil loss and gain associated with conventional and biosolids-based sod-production systems. Net soil loss or gain is a function of inputs and outputs over time. Estimation of outputs is straightforward. No peer-reviewed estimates of soil loss from sod production exist in the literature. A research report from 30 years ago estimated that soil removal from sod farms ranges from 9–23 T ac-1 yr,-1 and a recent internal NRCS document estimated soil loss associated with sod production and harvest to be 27–47 T ac.-1 In one recent research project, composted biosolids were applied at rates to meet crop (vegetables, corn, and rye) N requirements. The application rates ranged from 10–20 T ac-1 over a four-year period, amounts that account for 20% to 72% of NRCS-estimated soil removal by sod production and harvesting. Therefore, we anticipate that a biosolids production system could reduce soil loss and substantially increase the sustainability of sod production.
Effects on soil properties Before a biosolids production system is widely adopted for sod production, we must demonstrate the effects of biosolids application on soil properties to sod growers. Therefore, a further objective is to determine the changes associated with biosolids applications over
Sod Research continued
a four-year period on soil physical, chemical and biological properties. Several previous studies have demonstrated the beneficial effects that biosolids application has on soil properties, such as aggregate stability, water infiltration, soil organic matter, fertility and biological properties. However, in a sod-production system, a portion of the applied biosolids will be removed and exported upon harvest. The effect of this continuous removal on the short- and long-term effects of biosolids application to these soils is unknown. Land application of biosolids increases the soil’s organic matter and, hence, its carbon content, in addition to providing essential nutrients. Soil organic matter improves many soil chemical (e.g., cation exchange capacity, slow-release source of nitrogen), physical (e.g., water-holding capacity, porosity, aggregation) and biological (e.g., energy source for soil microorganisms critical to nutrient cycling) properties. Furthermore, carbon sequestration in agricultural soils may aid in offsetting anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions that cause climate change.
Further “green� benefits Land application must be evaluated as an alternative to land-filling and incineration of biosolids because carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide emissions (which contribute to climate change) are generated during the biosolids use/disposal processes. The FAO (2001) estimated that changing agricultural practices may be able to offset nearly 10% of U.S. carbon emissions. Amending soils with organic by-products, such as biosolids, may increase C sequestration, but few data are available from which to quantify the relationship between biosolids rate and C buildup. Such offsetting of carbon loss would be especially valuable at sod-production farms. Stay-tuned over the next five years for annual progress reports on this large and important project.
Journal of the Virginia Turfgrass Council |25
Calendar of Events
Turf Industry Events
Index of Advertisers
June 8
September 1–2
VTF Research Golf Tournament Wintergreen Resort/Stoney Creek Course Wintergreen, VA
Virginia Tech Turfgrass Field Days Blacksburg, VA
Collins Wharf Sod . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 www.cwsod.com
November 4–6
E & S Soil and Peat . . . . . . . . . . . 26 www.eandssoil.com
Pesticide Certification Training (3B) and Exam Henrico, VA
East Coast Sod & Seed . . . . . . . . . 13 www.eastcoastsod.com
June 16 Pesticide Recertification Williamsburg, VA
June 16–17 VSTMA Annual Field Days Forest, VA
June 23 Pesticide Recertification Staunton, VA
July 27–31 TPI Summer Convention & Field Days East Lansing, MI
December 7–9
Egypt Farms, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 www.egyptfarms.com
Virginia Tech Turfgrass Short Course Blacksburg, VA
Herod Seeds, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 www.herodseeds.com
December 14–16
Jacklin Seed, A division of Simplot . . . . . Inside Front Cover www.jacklin.com
Virginia Tech Turfgrass Short Course Virginia Beach, VA
January 18–21, 2010 VTC 50th Annual Turf & Landscape Conference and Trade Show Fredericksburg, VA
Lake Norman Dredging . . . . . . . . . 9 www.dockanddredge.com Landscape Supply, Inc. . . . . . . Insert www.landscapesupplyva.com Luck Stone Corporation . . . . . . . 25 www.luckstone.com Mid-Atlantic Sports Turf . . . . . . . . 7 Modern Turf, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 www.modernturf.com Oakland Plantation Turf Farm, Inc. . . . . . . . . . Back Cover www.ncturfgrass.com Oakwood Sod Farm, Inc. . . . . . . . 25 www.oakwoodsod.com Phoenix Environmental Care, LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 www.phoenixenvcare.com Quali-Pro . . . . . . . Inside Back Cover www.quali-pro.com Scott Turf Equipment, LLC . . . . . 25 Southern States Cooperative . . . . . 9 www.southernstates.com The Turfgrass Group . . . . . . . . . . . 3 www.theturfgrassgroup.com Weed Man . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 WMI, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 www.wmitsh.com
26| VIRGINIA TURFGRASS JOURNAL May/June 2009 www.thevtc.org