Journal of the Virginia Turfgrass Council
A
Roundup on
Glyphosate Managing Turfgrass for a Healthy Chesapeake Bay Plus, Save the Date for Virginia Tech Field Day June 25th, 2019
May/June 2019
Give water a break tiftuf bermudagrass is the new drought-tolerance superstar. The newest edition in the “Tif” (Tifton) series of bermudagrasses to originate from the renowned University of Georgia turfgrass breeding program, TifTuf promises to be a true game-changer in stellar yet environmentally friendly performance. Providing unbeatable drought tolerance, it uses 38% less water than Tifway 419, and it is significantly more drought resistant than all other bermudagrasses. In addition to its incredible drought tolerance, TifTuf is more aggressive than Tifway and provides superior wear and traffic tolerance (even better than Celebration), excellent cold tolerance (equal to Latitude 36 at Kansas State University), fast spring green-up and excellent fall color retention. In the 2015 NTEP trials, TifTuf was the highest-ranked cultivar in North Carolina, Alabama and Mississippi, and across all 17 locations overall, it was the highest-ranked, commercially available cultivar. TifTuf will not only pay for itself in water savings, but more importantly, it will create more-sustainable athletic fields for the future. In fact, it will soon become the ultimate must-have grass for sports turf managers who want to take a break from water use.
www.buysod.com | 866-428-9763 World Class Service On Demand
Buy Sod VarietieS: Golf Putting Greens: Bentgrass and Champion Dwarf bermudagrass
Bermudagrass: TifTuf, TifGrand, Celebration, Patriot, TifSport, Tifway and T10 St. Augustine: Raleigh • Zoysiagrass: Zeon and El Toro • Paspalum: SeaStar Centipedegrass: TifBlair and Common • Bluegrass: Tournament • Fescue/Bluegrass Mixtures
Journal of the Virginia Turfgrass Council | May/June 2019
20
14 13 Upcoming Events: Save the Date for Field Days And Come to the Valley
14 Cover Story:
A Roundup on Glyphosate 20 Spring Dead Spot: What Can You Do to Manage this Disease? 26 Feature Story: Managing Turfgrass for a Healthy Chesapeake Bay 31 Recent Event: Highlights From Come to the Bay
26 Departments 6 President’s Message
from Scott Woodward
8 Director’s Corner
from Tom Tracy, Ph.D.
8 Virginia Tech Turf Team 11 Editor’s Perspective
from Mark Vaughn, CGCS
12 VTF Report
from Betty Parker
12 Turfgrass Calendar 34 Index of Advertisers
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 ©2019 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 Jefferson City, MO. 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.)
4 | Virginia Turfgrass Journal May/June 2019 www.vaturf.org
MOST POWERFUL BLOWERS IN THE STIHL LINEUP BR 800 X MAGNUM ®
I
BR 800 C-E MAGNUM ®
Unleash the Beast at STIHLdealers.com
©2019 STIHL/MAS MA19TURF02-12-141915-3
President’s Message
Calling All Members
W
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
Scott Woodward 2019 President
ith the House Bill 2023 and other legislations being introduced we are at great risk, and now more than ever we need your help to grow our membership base. Your board of directors and numerous committees have been working hard to prevent these legislations from becoming laws. With a heavy membership base we are better positioned to influence these bills in our favor. As Tom Tracy recently stated, “How many members do you have?” is frequently asked by politicians. They know members mean votes!
Some things to keep in mind regarding benefits of membership: • FREE pesticide recertification training at the one-day regional seminars (Virginia Beach, Hampton, and Staunton) • FREE certified fertilizer applicator training • FREE entry to the research tour of turfgrass studies in June at the Hampton Roads AREC. • Combined, the value of the above three items is at least $145. Membership dues are $85. • VTC members also receive discounts to every one of our events and valuable assistance on state and local legislative and bureaucratic issues.
Reminder of Upcoming Events: • May 14 – Pesticide Recertification: Staunton • May 20 – Virginia Tech Research Golf Tournament • June 18 – Pesticide Recertification: Hampton • June 25 – VA Tech Field Day and Pesticide Recertification • August 20 – VA Tech Field Day: Blacksburg • October 8–9 – Come to the Valley: Staunton • December 9–12 – Turfgrass and Horticulture Short Courses: Henrico Finally, my request of you is to reach out to a friend, a company, anyone who has any interest and advocate membership in the VTC. Remember, let’s continue to work together so we can grow stronger together! Sincerely,
Scott H. Woodward VTC President
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 Scott Woodward Woodward Turf Farms (540) 727-0020 Vice President Michael Skelton Culpeper County (540) 727-3412 Treasurer Jimmy Viars, CGM Gloucester County Public Schools (804) 815-2779 Secretary Phil Bailey, CGCS Cypress Creek Golfer’s Club (757) 357-7995 Past President Rick Owens, CGCS Laurel Hill Golf Club (703) 674-6934 VTC DIRECTORS Wes Bray Scott Caskie Tony Montgomery Jesse Pritchard, CSFM David Smith T.J. Skirsky Craig Zeigler VTC ADVISORY MEMBERS OF THE BOARD Mike Goatley, Ph.D. (Chair) Shawn Askew, Ph.D. Jeffrey Derr, Ph.D. David McCall Ph.D. Executive Director/ Director of PROGRAMS Tom Tracy, Ph.D. (757) 464-1004 Virginia Turfgrass Foundation Betty Parker (757) 574-9061
6 | Virginia Turfgrass Journal May/June 2019 www.vaturf.org
Virginia Tech Turf Team
Director’s Corner
Shawn D. Askew, Ph.D.
Virginia Tech 435 Old Glade Road Blacksburg, VA 24061 (540) 231-5807 askew@vt.edu
Commitment and Concerns
Jeffrey F. Derr, Ph.D.
U
Tom Tracy, Ph.D. VTC Executive Director
nless your abode is beneath a rock, the EPA’s mandate and its effects on Virginia are no surprise. Here is a review. Beginning in 2010, the federal government mandated that states take measurable steps to reduce the amount of nitrogen, phosphorus, sediment, and other substances identified as pollutants entering the Chesapeake Bay and its tidal rivers. The reductions are encapsulated as TMDLs (Total Maximum Daily Loads) and are essentially a pollution diet for the Bay. The goal is to have all pollution reduction measures in place by 2025. Two reduction plans have already been implemented. The third, known as WIP 3 (Watershed Implementation Plan Three) takes effect in 2020. Localities and top state officials are very concerned about the costs and associated difficulties implementing this final mandate. Governor Northam even mentioned it in a recent speech. Anticipating the impact of this latest mandate on our industry, several of us traveled to Richmond to meet with the Deputy Secretary of Natural Resources and the Deputy Secretary of Agriculture. We expressed our commitment to a clean environment and our concerns about possible restrictions that benefit neither the environment nor the turfgrass and landscape industries. Our concerns were received and we were given some perspective about pressures the federal government is placing on Virginia and other Bay states. Arduous and costly are two terms I’ve heard to describe the policies and procedures which will be mandated by WIP III. The initial draft of WIP III was released in early April. Great news! It highlights the importance of existing state fertilization regulations. We are now in a public comment period before the document is finalized and sent to the EPA. What next? The need to continue our proper care of turfgrass and landscapes is critical. Praises frequently come from persons who recognize the good work being done by our industry. We do intend to increase our education to key decision makers in the General Assembly, regulatory agencies, and local jurisdictions. Looking forward to 2025, I envision a cleaner Chesapeake Bay and an industry praised for continually doing the right thing for sports fields, golf courses, lawns, and landscapes.
Tom Tracy, Ph.D.
Virginia Tech Hampton Roads Agricultural Research Station 1444 Diamond Springs Rd. Virginia Beach, VA 23455 (757) 363-3912 jderr@vt.edu
Mike Goatley Jr., Ph.D.
Virginia Tech 420 Smyth Hall Blacksburg, VA 24061 (540) 231-2951 goatley@vt.edu
David McCall, Ph.D.
Virginia Tech 435 Old Glade Road Blacksburg, VA 24061 (540) 231-9598 dsmccall@vt.edu
With Support from: Thomas P. Kuhar, Ph.D.
VTC Executive Director
Congratulations to TruGreen, our first Diamond Member. Details in the next issue.
8 | Virginia Turfgrass Journal May/June 2019 www.vaturf.org
Virginia Tech Dept. of Entomology 216 Price Hall 170 Drillfield Drive Blacksburg, VA 24061 (540) 231-6129 tkuhar@vt.edu
• T OPDRESSING S ANDS • D IVOT S ANDS & B LENDS • S TERILIZED T OPDRESSING • G REENS C ONSTRUCTION M IXES • O FF S ITE C USTOM B LENDING • C USTOM D YED S AND
113 ROUNDABOUT ROAD NEWTOWN, VA 23126 PHONE: 804-769-2285
B AGGED, B ULK & S UPER S ACKS www.virginiasand.com
Journal of the Virginia Turfgrass Council
|9
For test results check www.ntep.org
Editor’s Perspective
Work Smarter A
re you a glass half full or half empty person? Is the future brighter or bleaker for your kids than it was for you? When you get up and face another day, is it filled with possibilities or potential problems? No, I haven’t been taking psychology classes at the local community college. I’m just asking you the same questions I have to ask myself every once in a while. You may find this hard to believe, but I’m not always the upbeat, cheery, good looking, charming guy that you see in the photo above. Just ask those that live or work with me. Here on the Southside, a lot of people have been asking themselves these questions lately. I know it’s hard for the other ninety percent of the state to believe, but there are pockets of our Commonwealth where the unemployment rate is a problem, and it’s not because it is too low. Residents of this area can well relate to the Bruce Springsteen lyric of “foreman says the jobs are going boys, and they ain’t coming back – to your hometown.” At this point, they have every reason to be glass half empty people. And some of them are. Segments of our industry have seen somewhat similar times over the past several years. If you’re in the landscape, sod, irrigation, or sports turf sector things are rockin’ and times have never been better. With changing lifestyles and the housing boom, the sky is the limit. However, over in what was once “king golf,” things haven’t been quite
as rosy. Most will agree the peak came in the late 90’s and things had already leveled off before the tragedy of 9/11. Things kinda started to recover, then somebody moved our cheese again. Lots of reasons have been given for this: the myriad of activities competing for leisure time, a reordering of priorities within families, golf takes too long, blah, blah, blah. Add in the last 18 months of never-ending rain, shrinking budgets at the same time prices for goods and services are increasing, and everyone is not so fat and happy. Given the circumstances, you might think a general malaise would have set in over Southern and Southwest Virginia. But you would be mistaken. Instead, what has happened is what has taken place countless times over the short history of this country. People face challenges with perseverance, renewed vigor, ingenuity, and a
Mark Vaughn, CGCS Virginia Turfgrass Journal Editor
willingness to adapt. Those of us in the golf business realize we must do the same. Some things are tried and true and need to be held tightly, but if we are to reach the good NEW days it cannot be business as usual. One of the best ways to work smarter and hopefully more economically is to gather as much information as we can from our peers and our friends in academia. I cannot think of a better place than the pages of this publication to start. I couldn’t put the situation of my home area or my livelihood any better than Andy Dufresne did in one of my all-time favorite movies, The Shawshank Redemption – “Red, the way I see it, you got two choices. You can either get busy livin’ or get busy dyin’.” Amen, Andy.
Mark Vaughn
Journal of the Virginia Turfgrass Council
| 11
VTF Report
Turfgrass Calendar
Mark your calendar and
Research Tournament to Benefit Virginia Tech Turf Team
T
Betty B. Parker VTF Manager
he annual research tournament was held on May 20 at Independence Golf Course in Richmond. This event expanded its wings when the VGCSA joined efforts with the VTC to combine their time and talents to bolster revenue for research at Virginia Tech. In turn these talented researchers put on a first rate Field Day the morning of the tournament to showcase some of the research being done at this facility. It is research that answers some of the very questions that you as a member of the turfgrass industry have pondered. These researchers are answering your questions and making your ability to perform your job easier. They just plain make you look better in the eyes of your employees. Attendees also witnessed the unveiling of the brand new Virginia Turfgrass Foundation. The Foundation is spreading its wings and undergoing a makeover that will move it toward its goal of reaching one million dollars in 2019. We want all of you that are part of this great industry to be part of our success and we look forward to educating all of you to our mission and purpose. This year, nearly $57,000 was awarded for turfgrass research. The following projects are new or ongoing. 1. Expanding sod marketing options with native and pollinator plants – Askew/Goatley Funding for 1 year: $20,000
Save These Dates!
June 18 Pesticide Recertification
Northampton Community Center Hampton, VA
June 25 Virginia Tech Turfgrass Field Day plus Pesticide Recertification Hampton Roads AREC Virginia Beach, VA
August 20 VA Tech Turfgrass Research Field Day Virginia Tech Blacksburg, VA
2. Using ethylene and polyamine to prolong tall Fescue sod shelf life – Goatley/Zhang Funding for 1 year: $12,000 3. Monitoring annual bluegrass weevil on VA golf courses – Kuhar/Schultz/McCall Funding for 1 year: $19,260 4. 2nd year funding – Evaluating the potential of perennial two grass turf management systems – Whitney Askew/Goatley Funding for 2nd year: $5000
October 8–9 Come to the Valley
Frontier Culture Museum Staunton, VA
Betty Parker VTF
December 9–12 Turfgrass and Horticulture Short Courses Henrico
12 | Virginia Turfgrass Journal May/June 2019 www.vaturf.org
Upcoming Events
10th Annual Turfgrass Field Day plus Pesticide Recertification Tuesday, June 25, 2019
Virginia Tech • Hampton Roads Agricultural Research and Extension Center 1444 Diamond Springs Road • Virginia Beach, VA 23455
V
irginia Tech, in conjunction with the Virginia Turfgrass Council, will be hosting a turf field day on June 25, 2019 at the research station in Virginia Beach. Pesticide recertification credits will also be available for categories 3A, 3B, 5A, 6, 8, 10, and 60. For additional information on the tour, contact: Jeffrey Derr Virginia Tech (757) 363-3912 jderr@vt.edu or For preregistration information, contact: Tom Tracy VTC (757) 464-1004 virginiaturf@gmail.com Preregistration information can be found at the events page of the VTC website http://www.vaturf.org. Please preregister so we have an accurate count for lunch. Preregistration is required for lunch
Schedule:
Cost (includes lunch):
7:30 am – 8:00 am: Registration for Pesticide Recertification Class and Tour
VTC Members – All Events Free
8:00 am – 12:00 pm: Field Tour of Turf Plots and Pesticide Recertification
Nonmembers – $25.00 for the tour or $60 for the day. Join the VTC for $85 and attend the entire event gratis.
12:00 pm – 1:00 pm: Lunch 1:00 pm – 5:00 pm: Pesticide Recertification Class resumes The trials will be informative for golf course superintendents, sports turf managers, lawn care professionals, parks and recreation employees, extension personnel, and others in the turf industry.
Field Day will be held at Hampton Roads AREC
Turf trials that will be shown include: • Glyphosate versus glufosinate timing in bermudagrass and zoysiagrass • Postemergence control of grasses, sedges, and broadleaf weeds • Evaluation of new herbicides • Variety trials for tall fescue, St. Augustine, low maintenance areas • Drought tolerance in turfgrass cultivars
Jeff Derr leads a demonstration at a previous Field Day
Mark Your Calendars for Virginia Tech Blacksburg Field Days! • August 20th, 2019 For more information, visit virginiaturf.org
Journal of the Virginia Turfgrass Council
| 13
Cover Story
A
Roundup on
Glyphosate History, Use, Issues, and Alternatives
By Jeffrey Derr, Ph.D. Professor of Weed Science, Virginia Tech
14 | Virginia Turfgrass Journal May/June 2019 www.vaturf.org
G
lyphosate has been in the news quite a bit recently. You probably have seen the ads on television concerning glyphosate and human health. In this article I discuss some background information on this herbicide as well as scientific reports on toxicity of the chemical.
A. What is glyphosate? The glyphosate molecule (Figure 1) is similar to the amino acid glycine. The chemical name is N-(phosphonomethyl) glycine, a relatively small molecule compared to newer herbicides. It is the active ingredient in products such as Roundup PROMAX, as well as in generic products sold under a variety of trade names. Since the chemical is off patent (patent expired around 2000), other companies besides Monsanto/Bayer can sell this herbicide under their own trade name. Some examples of other trade names for products that contain glyphosate include Accord, Gly Star Pro, Glyphomate 41, Razor, Rodeo and Touchdown, among others.
B. Formulation The initial formation of this herbicide was an isopropylamine salt of glyphosate, which is still widely used, although other salt formulations are available now, such as the potassium salt and the dimethylamine salt. This becomes important when comparing products. We need to look at the amount of glyphosate acid in products, not the amount of active ingredient, since the different salt formulations differ in their molecular weight. For example, Roundup PROMAX contains 5.5 pounds per gallon of the potassium salt of glyphosate (ai) or 4.5 lbs/gallon glyphosate acid (ae). Roundup Pro contained 4.0 lbs/gallon of the isopropylamine salt of glyphosate (ai) or 3.0 lbs/gallon glyphosate acid (ae). So Roundup PROMAX contains 50% more glyphosate acid than Roundup Pro and applications rates in terms of fluid ounces of product per acre are lower than for Roundup Pro. Besides glyphosate, there are other chemicals in commercial formulations, usually water and a surfactant. As an example of a formulation, Roundup PROMAX contains the potassium salt of glyphosate at 48.7% by weight, surfactant(s) approximately 9%, and water plus minor ingredients at approximately 42%.
Surfactants can aid in the absorption of herbicides by weeds. One example would be POEA (polyoxyethylene tallow amine). Concerns have been raised about the toxicity of this surfactant to aquatic organisms such as tadpoles, salamanders, and frogs. Aquatic formulations of glyphosate either do not contain a surfactant or contain a surfactant that has not shown to be an issue. That is why certain formulations of glyphosate are not labeled for aquatic use – not due to the toxicity of glyphosate but due to toxicity concerns about the surfactant to amphibians and other aquatic organisms. For glyphosate products that do not contain a surfactant, one generally needs to add an approved one for optimum weed control.
C. History Glyphosate was found to control weeds by a Monsanto scientist in 1970. The herbicide was patented in 1971 and was introduced commercially as Roundup in 1974. Glyphosate use has increased over time, especially when RoundupReady crops were introduced, starting with Roundup Ready soybeans in 1996. These soybean lines, and later corn, cotton, and other crop cultivars, were developed to be resistant to glyphosate through biotechnology. For these geneticallymodified crops, glyphosate could be applied overtop for selective weed control.
D. Mode of action Glyphosate inhibits the enzyme enolpyruvyl shikimate-3phosphate (EPSP) synthase, needed for synthesis of the aromatic amino acids tryptophan, tyrosine, and phenylalanine in plants. Animals, including people, do not make these amino acids, so they need to get these chemicals in their diet. Plants have to make these amino acids, which are the building blocks of proteins. So glyphosate inhibits a process that occurs in plants but not in animals, resulting in a chemical that controls plants with low acute toxicity to animals, including people.
E. Acute toxicity of glyphosate A measure of toxicity is the LD50 value, the dose required to kill 50% of the test animal, usually rats. The higher
Figure 1: glyphosate isopropylamine salt
Journal of the Virginia Turfgrass Council
| 15
Cover Story continued
the LD50, the lower the toxicity. The acute oral LD50 for glyphosate in rats is greater than 5,000 mg/kg – practically non-toxic. The acute dermal LD50 rat is greater than 5,000 mg/kg – practically non-toxic. (taken from SDS sheet for Roundup PROMAX, http://www.cdms.net/ldat/mp8NJ004 .pdf). For comparison the acute oral LD50 rat for caffeine is 192 mg/kg (https://psychonautwiki.org/wiki/Caffeine) so caffeine is a much more toxic chemical than glyphosate. The acute oral LD50 rat for aspirin is 950 mg/kg (aspirin SDS, https://www.caymanchem.com/msdss/70260m.pdf), also more toxic on an acute basis than glyphosate. Another point to keep in mind is that risk associated with a given pesticide is based on the toxicity of the chemical along with the exposure level.
F. Use Glyphosate is a nonselective postemergence herbicide, meaning that it controls essentially all weeds. The recent development of glyphosate-resistant weeds has pushed researchers and growers to find alternative means to control these weed species. However, most weed species are still susceptible to glyphosate. Glyphosate is systemic, so it moves into and controls underground portions of weeds (roots, rhizomes, tubers, etc.), making it the preferred product for perennial weed control in many situations. This chemical binds to soil particles and has essentially no soil activity, so crops can be planted a week after application. Glyphosate is used for preplant weed control/site preparation, lawn renovation, spot treatment of weeds in landscape beds, as a directed spray application in fruit and nursery production, and for noncrop weed management, such as guard rails, railroad lines, and parking lots, among other uses. It controls grasses, sedges, and broadleaf weeds, making it a broad spectrum herbicide.
G. Recent issues about glyphosate It has been suggested that glyphosate causes non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), a type of cancer, and other diseases. In one epidemiological report, associations between pesticides and NHL subtypes were reported, including B cell lymphoma and glyphosate (Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2014 Apr 23;11(4):4449-527. doi: 10.3390/ijerph110404449). The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), part of the World Health organization, listed glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen (Group 2A) in 2015 (https://monographs.iarc.fr/wp-content/uploads/2018/ 06/mono112-10.pdf), along with burning of wood, eating red meat, high-temperature frying, late-night work shifts, being a hairdresser or barber, spraying insecticides, and making art glass, among others (https://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/List_of_IARC_Group_2A_carcinogens). In August 2018, a jury in San Francisco ordered Roundup’s manufacturer, Monsanto, to pay $289 million in damages to a school groundskeeper (Dewayne Lee Johnson) who
argued that the glyphosate-based herbicide caused his cancer. A judge later upheld that decision but reduced Monsanto’s payout to $78 million. Recently, another jury in San Francisco ruled against Monsanto, with the jury concluding that glyphosate was a substantial factor in causing non-Hodgkin lymphoma in Edwin Hardeman, a 70-year-old Sonoma County man. Bayer, which bought Monsanto, responded by saying that there is over four decades of extensive science on glyphosate and the conclusions of regulators worldwide support the safety of their glyphosate-based herbicides and that they are not carcinogenic (https://www.bayer.us/en/ newsroom/press-releases/article/?id=123290). Harrells has decided not to sell glyphosate products (https://www.lawnandlandscape.com/article/ll-031219harrells-discontinues-glyphosate/). Although the company feels that the weight of scientific evidence strongly supports its safety when used properly, their insurance provider would not cover any claims related to glyphosate. With apparently over 11,000 lawsuits filed against Monsanto, there is a financial risk from the insurance standpoint related to glyphosate. Another issue that has been mentioned is that glyphosate may affect bacteria in the gut microbiome. Low levels of glyphosate have been reported in certain crops, generally in the parts per billion range, although the EPA has determined that the low levels do not pose a significant health risk to humans. Low levels of labeled pesticides can sometimes be detected in food crops, but the EPA compares these levels to the toxicity data for that pesticide to determine a no effects level and to set residue levels allowed before approving a pesticide. Certain bacteria can be adversely affected by exposure to glyphosate. A recent issue that has been reported is an impact on the gut bacteria in honey bees, resulting in adverse effects (Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 2018 Oct 9; 115(41): 10305–10310).
H. What does the scientific literature say about glyphosate and cancer? As of 2016, there were 23 epidemiological studies, 15 animal carcinogenicity studies and over 90 genotoxicity studies for glyphosate. Reviews have been written summarizing the conducted studies. A review in 2012 found no consistent pattern of causation between glyphosate exposure and cancer (Mink et al. Reg. Toxicology & Pharmacology 63:440-452). Some conclusions of glyphosate effects are not supported by available evidence (Frontiers in Public Health 2017 Vol 5 Article 316). There was no association between glyphosate and any solid tumor, including. non-Hodgkin lymphoma (Andreotti et al. 2018 J. National Cancer Institute 110 (5): 509-516). The U.S. EPA concluded in a 2013 report that glyphosate does not pose a cancer risk to humans (2013 Federal Register Notice (FR 25396, Vol. 78, No. 84, May 1, 2013). In 2016, EPA’s office of Pesticide Programs released a report (https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/ 2016-09/documents/glyphosate_issue_paper_evaluation_ of_carcincogenic_potential.pdf). In it, EPA states that
16 | Virginia Turfgrass Journal May/June 2019 www.vaturf.org
Cover Story continued
“In epidemiological studies, there was no evidence of an association between glyphosate exposure and numerous cancer outcomes; however, due to conflicting results and various limitations identified in studies investigating NHL, a conclusion regarding the association between glyphosate exposure and risk of NHL cannot be determined based on the available data.” “Increases in tumor incidence were not considered treatment-related in any of the animal carcinogenicity studies.” “The overall weight of evidence indicates that there is no convincing evidence that glyphosate induces mutations in vivo via the oral route.” EPA’s overall conclusion was that glyphosate was “’not likely to be carcinogenic to humans’ at doses relevant to human health risk assessment.” In 2017, the EPA issued a draft assessment, which also concluded that glyphosate is not a likely carcinogen to humans (Released Draft Risk Assessments for Glyphosate, https://www.epa.gov/pesticides/epa-releases-draft-riskassessments-glyphosate). The European Food Safety Authority and the EU member states concluded in 2015 that glyphosate is unlikely to pose a carcinogenic hazard to humans and the evidence does not support classification with regard to its carcinogenic potential (EFSA Journal 2015;13(11):4302).
The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations in a 2016 summary report concluded that “in view of the absence of carcinogenic potential in rodents at human-relevant doses and the absence of genotoxicity by the oral route in mammals, and considering the epidemiological evidence from occupational exposures, the Meeting concluded that glyphosate is unlikely to pose a carcinogenic risk to humans from exposure through the diet” (https:// www.who.int/foodsafety/jmprsummary2016.pdf). Why did the ARC reach a different conclusion than EPA and the EFSA and the FAO? The IARC only looked at publicly-available reports while EPA evaluated all data, including those submitted by the registrant and those not published. The IARC did not consider dose in their analysis while the EPA considered dose to be relevant to the interpretation of data. EPA did a systemic evaluation of the quality for the studies conducted with glyphosate while the IARC did less of a quality evaluation. There can be differing opinions on the interpretation of laboratory testing of pesticides. One cannot test chemicals on people, so scientists use a test animal such as rats. Labs will use only a limited number of test animals and may increase the dose to levels much higher than typical exposure levels of the chemical to try to force responses that
18 | Virginia Turfgrass Journal May/June 2019 www.vaturf.org
Cover Story continued
may occur at low frequency or at low dosages. If cancer develops in the test animal only at doses much higher than a typical exposure would be, what do you conclude? Did the dose cause the response or did the chemical cause the effect? Can you extrapolate the data to lower doses? These are questions that arise when interpreting results from lab studies.
I. Alternatives to glyphosate We do not have a ready alternative to glyphosate that provides the same level of weed control and use. The closest in my opinion is glufosinate (Finale, Cheetah Pro), another nonselective postemergence herbicide that is inactivated upon contact with soil. It works faster on weeds than glyphosate but it is not as systemic as glyphosate. So glyphosate generally provides greater control of perennial weeds, especially perennial grasses, compared to glufosinate. There are nonselective postemergence contact herbicides, such as diquat (Reward), pelargonic acid (Scythe), and acetic acid (WeedPharm). These contact herbicides will not affect the underground portions of perennial weeds so they are more effective overall on annual weeds.
J. Decision making Read the literature cited in this article and determine for yourself the benefits and risks to use of glyphosate. Be careful about articles you read on the internet, in newspapers, and in other media. Sometimes claims are made about chemicals that are not supported by scientific research. Ask to see data from published, peer-reviewed articles in scientific journals. If you plan to continue using glyphosate, as we plan to do here at the research station, follow information listed on the label. For example, the Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) for Roundup PROMAX is a long sleeve shirt, long pants, shoes, and socks (http://www.cdms.net/ldat/ld8NJ010 .pdf). Read and follow all label directions. Make sure the product you use has a label for the site to be treated. c
Acknowledgement –
I would like to thank Dr. Timothy Pastoor, of Pastoor Science Communications for sharing his PowerPoint “Glyphosate – Get the Facts” with me. Some of the information listed above was taken from this PowerPoint
Journal of the Virginia Turfgrass Council
| 19
Turf Talk
Spring Dead Spot: What Can You do to Manage This Disease?
By Wendell J. Hutchens, Ph.D. student under supervision of David McCall, Ph.D., Virginia Tech
Introduction The spring of the year is unpredictable for bermudagrass managers in the transition zone. Winterkill and spring dead spot (SDS) can devastate turfgrass stands. Affected bermudagrass exhibits necrotic circular patches at greenup —damage caused by SDS is both aesthetically and economically detrimental, and also provides an uneven playing surface that may increase the likelihood of sports-related injuries (Figure 1). Managing SDS is a year-round task—not just in the fall as previously thought. Preventative fungicide applications employed in the fall are typically the most effective for reducing SDS. However, cultural practices performed throughout the year can impact disease incidence, severity, and recovery. Turfgrass managers should maintain proper soil fertility and pH, apply effective fungicides, and implement other cultural practices to mitigate disease development. Figure 1: Outbreak of spring dead spot on a bermudagrass fairway. (Photo by David McCall)
Soil fertility and pH A fundamental concept of plant pathology is that healthy plants are more likely to withstand pathogen infection, and this holds true with SDS of bermudagrass. Proper soil fertility and pH is vital for turfgrass health. Maintaining proper soil fertility and pH improves the edaphic environment for turfgrass, allowing the plant to outcompete the pathogen. Certain reports suggest that soil pH for bermudagrass should be maintained close to 5-5.3 to mitigate SDS (Dernoeden et al., 1991; Vincelli et al., 1995; Vincelli et al., 1998). Moreover, a pH of 6 has been shown to increase Ophiosphaerella spp. growth in vitro while a pH of 5 or 7 can reduce fungal growth in vitro (Cottrill et al., 2016). The impact of late-season nitrogen applications has proven inconsistent. One study showed that late-season nitrogen applications increased SDS development (McCarty et al., 1992), yet results have been difficult to duplicate and other studies have suggested otherwise. Late fall applications of potassium sulfate are not recommended as SDS severity can increase the following spring (McCarty et al., 1992). In contrast, monthly applications of ammonium sulfate from May through September can reduce SDS incidence and severity the following spring (Dernoeden et al., 1991). Also, the application of sulfur in conjunction with fungicides over multiple years has the potential to reduce spring dead spot; however, three monthly sulfur applications (87.43 lbs acre-1) may cause phytotoxic effects and slowdown spring greenup (Cottrill et al., 2016). Recent research has also shown that Ophiosphaerella korrae can be suppressed by calcium nitrate applications while Ophiosphaerella herpotrica can be suppressed by ammonium sulfate (Butler, 2017). In contrast, a recent study from the Midwest showed that nitrogen source alone had no effect on SDS control (Cottrill et al., 2016). Although the results have been variable, application of proper fertility and nitrogen source is a potential method for reducing the disease. That being said, the driving factors of SDS epidemics are still not well understood.
SDS fungicide applications Fungicide applications are the most effective preventative control measure for SDS, particularly with several new chemistries available today. Various researchers throughout the United States have shown that penthiopyrad (Velista), isofetamid (Kabuto), and pyraclostrobin + fluxapyroxad (Lexicon) provide good SDS suppression (Booth et al., 2018; Earlywine and Miller, 2019; Galle et al., 2019; Freund et al., 2019; Roberson et al., 2017). While suppression is less consistent, many turfgrass professionals apply tebuconazole as a more affordable option. The introduction of these products and other novel chemistries provides new hope for increased SDS control. 20 | Virginia Turfgrass Journal May/June 2019 www.vaturf.org
Turf Talk continued
Proper fungicide application timing is also critical for management of SDS. Historically, applications made in the fall when soil temperatures are between 55 and 70°F have been most effective. However, new research from our lab (Figure 2) has demonstrated that the pathogen is also active at warmer temperatures (68–82°F) when grown in vitro. How this impacts the timing of fungicide applications is still not well understood. Our current hypothesis is that fall applications may need to be made earlier or over a longer period of time (i.e. from September to November) depending on soil temperatures. Split applications made at lower use rates at a 28-day interval with the proper fungicide suppressed SDS more effectively than a single application at higher rates in one study (Roberson et al., 2017). Furthermore, a timely spring application has also been shown to be beneficial in reducing SDS the following year (Walker, 2009). Lastly, the fungicide application method used is critical for adequate SDS control. Fenarimol (Rubigan) applications in conjunction with a wetting agent reduce SDS incidence and severity (Beck et al., 2012). Wetting agents and postapplication irrigation increase downward movement of fungicides thereby increasing concentrations of fungicide in the basal portions of the turfgrass plant (Hutchens et al., 2018). Increasing fungicide distribution to the basal portions of the plant where Ophiosphaerella spp. is infecting is likely to increase fungicide efficacy against SDS. It is recommended to apply wetting agents throughout the growing season as well as tank-mix a wetting agent during fungicide applications for SDS. Furthermore, application of at least 1/4" of irrigation when targeting a soilborne pathogen such as Ophiosphaerella spp. is recommended (Hutchens et al., 2018). Figure 2: Effect of temperature on in vitro growth of Ophiosphaerella korrae and Ophiosphaerella herpotrica (R2 = 0.8987).
Other cultural practices to implement Aerification, vertical mowing or verticutting, and topdressing reduce thatch and potentially mitigate SDS (Tisserat and Fry, 1997; Vincelli and Williams, 1998; White and Dickens, 1984). Severing stolons creates new growing points and stimulates new growth that can aid in SDS recovery. Fraise mowing, an aggressive approach to remove aboveground material and promote new growth, has successfully reduced SDS severity and increased spring recovery (Miller et al., 2017). It is also recommended to raise mowing heights in the late summer and early fall to prevent stress to the plant going into dormancy––this provides a greater defense for the plant against Ophiosphaerella spp. (Downer et al., 2016). Planting SDS tolerant cultivars (i.e. cold tolerant cultivars) in newly established areas and in areas that are severely affected with SDS every year is recommended. SDS tolerance of commonly planted bermudagrass cultivars is shown in Table 1 (Vann and Patton, 2019). Also, the newer cultivars ‘Northbridge’ and ‘Latitude 36’ have shown promising results for their cold hardiness, which commonly results in greater SDS tolerance (Kenna, 2016). With this in mind, it is important to note that no cultivar is truly resistant to SDS. Breeders continue to develop new cold-tolerant varieties that will likely improve our ability to successfully manage bermudagrass in Virginia, but this will only be one portion of the SDS equation.
Spring and summer management practices to increase recovery rate Fall preventative management practices are not always sufficient for adequate SDS control. Therefore, management practices to increase the rate of turfgrass recovery in the spring and summer may be necessary. Aerification in early to mid-summer can help increase warm-season turfgrass recovery and reduce thatch (White and Dickens, 1984). Furthermore, topdressing has been shown to reduce thatch and SDS (Hawes, 1980; White and Dickens, 1984). Early growing season applications of the proper fungicide may also reduce Ophiosphaerella spp. inoculum levels, thereby reducing disease development the following spring. Lastly, applications of fertilizer early in the growing season can speed up warm-season turfgrass recovery. Table 1: Bermudagrass cultivar tolerances to spring dead spot (Vann and Patton, 2019).
22 | Virginia Turfgrass Journal May/June 2019 www.vaturf.org
Relative Tolerance
Cultivars
Most
Midfield, Midriron, Midlawn, Patriot, Rivera, Tifsport, Yukon
Moderate
Cheyenne, Mirage, Sundevil II, Tifway 419
Least
Arizona common, Tifton 10, Sahara, Princess 77, Pyramid, Sunbird, Savannah, Transcontinental, Tifgreen
Turf Talk continued
Conclusions and future research Proper management of SDS is challenging. One management practice alone is not sufficient for managing SDS; however, an integrated, comprehensive management strategy of the aforementioned practices provides the greatest chance for adequate disease control and/or recovery (Vincelli and Williams, 1998). Our lab is currently focusing on ways to improve management and our understanding of factors that impact disease development. We will be conducting future studies on the edaphic and environmental factors that most influence SDS development. We are also currently testing fungicide sensitivity of the various Ophiosphaerella species. Preliminary research suggests that Ophiosphaerella korrae and Ophiosphaerella herpotrica respond differently to various fungicides, which may help explain why disease control is often inconsistent. Furthermore, we are conducting both statewide and nationwide surveys for the presence of SDS. From these surveys, we will also sample specific locations to determine which species occur in each region.
Citations Beck, L.L., Moore-Kucera, J., Henry, G., Woodward, J., Zak, J., and Cox, R. 2012. Evaluation of Chemical and Cultural Methods for the Management of Spring Dead Spot in Bermudagrass Turf. Dissertation. Texas Tech University. Booth, J.C., Askew, S.A., Baudoin, A.B., Goatley, J.M., and McCall, D.S. 2018. Investigating Spring Dead Spot Management via Aerial Mapping and Precision-Guided Inputs. Thesis. Virginia Polytechnic Institute. Butler, E.L. 2017. Spring Dead Spot in Turf. NC State Extension Publications. Cottrill, D.J., Earlywine, D.T., and Miller, G.L. 2016. Assessment of Nitrogen Source, Sulfur, and Fall Fungicide Applications on the Management of Spring Dead Spot of Bermudagrass. Plant Disease 100.2: 473-482. Dernoeden, P. H., J. N. Crahay, and D. B. Davis. 1991. Spring Dead Spot and Bermudagrass Quality As Influenced by Nitrogen Source and Potassium. Crop Sci. 31:1674-1680. doi:10.2135/cropsci1991.0011183X00310 0060058x Downer, A., Harivandi, M.A., Wong, F., Hartin, J., and Grebus, M.E. Spring Dead Spot. UC IPM Pest Management Guidelines: Turfgrass UC ANR Publication 3365-T. Earlywine, D. and Miller, G.L. 2019. Evaluation of Kabuto and Velista for preventative spring dead spot control on bermudagrass, 2017-2018. Plant Dis. Manag. Rep. 13:T020. Online publication. doi: 10.1094/PDMR13 Freund, D.R., Kerns, J.P., Butler, E.L., Ploetz, J.N. 2019. Evaluation of fungicides for control of spring dead spot on a bermudagrass putting green, 2017-2018. Plant Dis.
Manag. Rep. 13:T005. Online publication. doi: 10.1094/ PDMR13 Galle, G.H., Kerns, J.P., Butler, E.L., and Ploetz, J.N. 2019. Evaluation of Kabuto and Tekken for the control of spring dead spot on Ultradwarf bermudagrass putting greens, 2017–2018. Plant Dis. Manag. Rep. 13:T006. Online publication. doi: 10.1094/PDMR13 Hawes, D. T. 1980. Response of Warm- and Cool-Season Turfgrass Polystands to Nitrogen and Topdressing1. In: J. B. Beard, editor, Proceedings of the Third International Turfgrass Research Conference, ASA, CSSA, SSSA, Madison, WI. p. 65-74. doi:10.2135/1974. proc3rdintlturfgrass.c9 Hutchens, W.J., Gannon, T.W., Shew, H.D., and Kerns, J.P. 2018. Effect of Irrigation Amount and Soil Surfactants on Fungicide Movement and Efficacy in Turfgrass Systems. Thesis. North Carolina State University. Kenna, Mike. 2016. Cold-Hardy Bermudagrass for Practice Tees. USGA Research Update. McCarty, L.B., Lucas, L.T., and DiPaola, J.M. 1992. Spring Dead Spot Occurrence in Bermudagrass following Fungicide and Nutrient Applications. HortScience 27.10: 1092-1093. https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTSCI.27.10.1092 Miller, G. L., D. T. Earlywine, and B. S. Fresenburg. 2017. Effect of Fraze Mowing on Spring Dead Spot Caused by Ophiosphaerella herpotricha of Bermudagrass. International Turfgrass Society Research Journal 13:225-228. doi: 10.2134/itsrj2016.10.0839 Roberson, T.L., McCall, D.S., Estes, A., Shelton, C.D. Novel Spring Dead Spot Control Using Isofetamid. Abstract. American Society of Agronomy Meeting, 2017. Tisserat, N. A., and Fry, J. 1997. Cultural practices to reduce spring dead spot (Ophiosphaerella herpotricha) severity in Cynodon dactylon. Intl. Turfgrass Soc. Res. J. 8:931-936. Vann, Stephen & Patton, Aaron. 2019. Bermudagrass Spring Dead Spot. Vincelli, Paul C. and Williams, David, “Managing Spring Dead Spot of Bermudagrass.” 1998. Agriculture and Natural Resources Publications. 62. https://uknowledge.uky.edu/ anr_reports/62 Vincelli, P., Doney, J. C., and Powell, A. J. 1995. Management of spring dead spot of bermudagrass, 1993–1994. Biol. Cult. Tests Control Plant Dis. 10:34. Walker, N.R. 2009. Influence of Fungicide Application Timings on the Management of Bermudagrass Spring Dead Spot Caused by Ophiosphaerella herpotrica. Plant Disease 93.12: 1341-1345. https://doi.org/10.1094/ PDIS-93-12-1341 White, R. H., and R. Dickens. 1984. Thatch Accumulation in Bermudagrass as Influenced by Cultural Practices1. Agron. J. 76:19-22. doi:10.2134/agronj1984.0002196200 7600010006x c
24 | Virginia Turfgrass Journal May/June 2019 www.vaturf.org
Not a one-trick pony. • #1 in Turf Quality (NTEP)
• Uses 18% less water than TifTuf*
• #1 in Cold Tolerance (NTEP)
• Very dense with 1/8” HOC possible
• #1 in Spring Green-Up (NTEP)
• Beautiful & Extremely wear tolerant
*Study sponsored by USGA & USDA, conducted by researchers at Oklahoma State University, Evapotranspiration Rates of Turf Bermudagrasses under Nonlimiting Soil Moisture Conditions in Oklahoma, published in Crop Science, March 2018.
Developed by the turfgrass experts at Oklahoma State University
Contact Us Today to Find a Grower Near You! Sod Production Services 18161 Sandy Point Road, Charles City, VA 23030 757.345.1120 | Tahoma31Bermudagrass.com
@Tahoma31 @Tahoma31Bermudagrass @Tahoma31Bermudagrass
Feature Story
Managing Turfgrass for a Healthy Chesapeake Bay, Rivers and Streams By Joe Wood, Ph. D.
W
hether it’s fishing for brook trout in Blue Ridge streams, paddling the James River near Richmond, or enjoying local oysters on the Eastern Shore, we all benefit from clean waterways in Virginia. Likewise, how turfgrass is managed is essential to the health of local streams, rivers and waters downstream in the Chesapeake Bay. In developed parts of Virginia, turfgrass is among the most common land covers. That’s why using sustainable practices on turfgrass is critical to not only ensuring beautiful green spaces, but also protecting our valuable waterways. The key lies in addressing polluted runoff—one of the biggest threats to clean water in Virginia. It occurs when heavy rains wash a mix of chemicals, sediment, and excess nutrients, and other pollution off buildings, streets, parking lots, and even lawns and golf courses. This pollution contributes to murky waters, algal blooms, lowoxygen dead zones, and a host of other problems in our rivers and the Chesapeake Bay.
Two ways to minimize polluted runoff are through proper nutrient management for turfgrass and conservationminded landscaping. Notably, bare cover is especially bad for clean water. Sustainably-managed turfgrass is one way to avoid damage caused by runoff from muddy exposed soil. The turfgrass industry is an important partner in the Chesapeake Clean Water Blueprint—the multistate effort to clean up waters across the six-state Bay watershed. State and local governments have committed to achieve specific, measurable pollution reductions under the Blueprint. The states agreed to have the 60 percent of the needed programs and practices in place by 2017, and to complete the job by 2025. The Blueprint calls on everyone to do their part, including farmers, cities and towns, wastewater treatment plants, and of course turfgrass professionals. The turfgrass industry has specifically helped accomplish significant goals under the Blueprint, including supporting legislation that prohibits
26 | Virginia Turfgrass Journal May/June 2019 www.vaturf.org
Aerial View of Chesapeake Bay (Photo Courtesy of CBF – Bill Portlock)
Journal of the Virginia Turfgrass Council
| 27
Feature Story continued
Sustainable practices in managed turf and landscape areas in the Bay watershed are essential to Bay health.
phosphorous in lawn maintenance fertilizer without soil tests, establishing nutrient management plans on golf courses across the state, and increasing nutrient management in urban areas. After years of work we are beginning to see noteworthy progress for clean water, from record coverage of underwater grasses, more dissolved oxygen in waterways, and a burgeoning oyster aquaculture industry in Virginia. However, the Bay watershed is still a system in recovery, and without a sustained and coordinated long-term effort this progress could be reversed. What’s the current state of the Chesapeake Bay and the many tributaries in its watershed? Since 1998, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF) has tracked the Bay’s health in its State of the Bay report. CBF scientists compile and examine the best available data and information for 13 indicators in three categories: pollution, habitat,
Conquer nature Call Now For Your Free Demo!
540.375.2841 www.tce-va.com
Finish Mower
405 W 4th St. • Salem, Va 24153
Ballpark Groomer
28 | Virginia Turfgrass Journal May/June 2019 www.vaturf.org
and fisheries. CBF scientists assign each indicator an index score from 1 to 100. Taken together, these indicators offer an overall assessment of Bay health. This year’s State of the Bay Report score decreased one point to 33, equivalent to a D+. After years of progress, the drop was largely due to increased pollution and poor water clarity caused by record regional rainfall in 2018 that led to more polluted runoff. “The good news is that scientists are pointing to evidence of the Bay’s increased resiliency and ability to withstand, and recover from, these severe weather events. And this resiliency is a direct result of the pollution reductions achieved to date. In addition, we did see increases in scores for dissolved oxygen and Bay grasses since 2016, but the recovery is still fragile,” said Beth McGee, CBF’s Director of Science and Agricultural Policy. Two of the 13 indicators, dissolved oxygen and Bay grasses, improved. In the pollution category, toxics were unchanged, while water clarity, and nitrogen and phosphorus pollution were worse. In the habitat category, scores for Bay grasses and resource lands improved, and buffers and wetlands remained the same. In the fisheries category, scores for oysters, crabs, and rockfish remained the same, while the score for shad declined. This year’s score is still far short of the goal to reach 40 by 2025 and ultimately a 70, which would represent a saved Bay. The unspoiled Bay ecosystem described by Captain John Smith in the 1600s, with its extensive forests and wetlands, clear water, abundant fish and oysters, and lush growths of submerged vegetation, serves as the theoretical benchmark and would rate a 100 on CBF’s scale. Continued cooperation from all of the Bay restoration partners, including the turfgrass industry, is essential to a lasting win. “The Blueprint is a road map to a restored Bay. If the states and EPA do their part, we can succeed in achieving the greatest environmental success the world has ever seen,” said CBF President William C. Baker. c
For more information, visit
www.cbf.org/stateofthebay
call Frank Whitbeck, president
(501) 375-0749 (800) 225-0303
NeW from Frank Whitbeck and the Greenhouses of Winrock Grass Farm, Inc.
roLLMaSter zoySIaGraSS ®
RollMaster® Zoysiagrass is a new winter-hardy, ultra fine warm season putting surface that stays green longer and requires fewer inputs than any other golf green: less fertility, less water, less herbicides and fungicides, fewer mowings, less labor, and no tarps! Plus, this tough new playing surface can be used not only for golf greens, but golf tees, collars and green surrounds, approaches and fairways, in sun or shade! Professionally tested in Tennessee and Arkansas for 10 years before its release with no winter kill even at lower mowing heights! Ask about our RollMaster® Zoysiagrass warranty!
Luxury golf without a champagne budget!
Golfers will enjoy playability along with affordability!
Use Iron in Fall and Spring – No FertILIzer UNtIL May!
We deliver RollMaster® Zoysiagrass anywhere and everywhere. Call us to discuss your particular Zoysiagrass delivery needs.
Visit us online to discover more of our hIGh perForMaNce zoysiagrass varieties: ShadekING® zoysiagrass, WINrock zoySIa® for Sun and ezoy™ zoysiagrass
www.WINrockGraSSFarM.com / winrockgrassfarm@gmail.com
QuaLity used & Reconditioned eQuipment, ReeL GRindinG, RepaiRs & seRvice
moBiLe RepaiR Larry templeton, manager cell: (804) 313-7772 email: larry@vaturfequipment.com www.vaturfequipment.com p.o. Box 728 • tappahannock, va 22560
ReGuLaR seRvice visit pLans ReasonaBLe Rates! Quality used equipment Reel & Bed Knife Grinding traction & cutting unit Repair/overhaul engine Replacement pick-up and delivery for your equipment
Let us help find equipment that fits your needs!
Recent Event
Come to the Bay was a Great Success! Dr. Greg Evanylo (Virginia Tech) presents ways to use biosolids in the landscape
H
eld February 26–27 in Virginia Beach, this event was a member favorite. Turnout was high, and attendees had many opportunities to expand their knowledge and network with other turfgrass professionals. Education opportunities focused on Environmental Stewardship and included sessions on Getting the Basics Right, Public Relations and Pesticides and Pollinators. Certified Turfgrass Professional Training was provided as well as pesticide recertification. Alongside our sponsors, we are proud to offer these educational and social opportunities to increase our knowledge and represent the industry well. Thank you to all of our vendors, speakers, sponsors and attendees who made this event a success!
Corinne Stephens (Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay) discussing ways companies can become involved
Andrea Davis (Virginia Cooperative Extension) prepares attendees to take the pesticide certification exam Michael Moore (City of Virginia Beach) discusses ways the city ensures pesticides and fertilizers are properly applied
Former VTC President Jack McClanahan (left) with VTC Executive Director Tom Tracy (right)
Journal of the Virginia Turfgrass Council
| 31
Recent Event continued
Presenting Sponsor:
Chris Moore (Chesapeake Bay Foundation) gives a State of the Bay presentation
Social Sponsor:
Dr. Jeff Derr (Virginia Tech) presents the latest glyphosate findings
Tide Level Sponsor:
Inlet Level Sponsor:
Guy Mussey (Virginia Cooperative Extension) enjoys the social Sponsorships and vendor tables are available for 2020 – Reserve yours today!
The Sheraton Oceanfront provided a fantastic venue for Come to the Bay
32 | Virginia Turfgrass Journal May/June 2019 www.vaturf.org
Journal of the Virginia Turfgrass Council
| 33
Index of Advertisers Agronomic Lawn Management.....................34 www.FertilizerWithALM.com Alliance Material Handling, Inc......................9 www.alliancemat.com Burlingham Seeds...........................................10 www.burlinghamseeds.com Buy Sod, Inc........................ Inside Front Cover www.buysod.com Carolina Green Corp......................................34 www.cgcfields.com Central Sod Farms of Maryland, Inc...............9 www.centralsodmd.com Collins Wharf Sod Farm.................................19 www.collinswharfsod.com CoverSports USA............................................33 www.coversports.com Daniel Sod Farms............................................34 www.danielsodfarm.com Genesis Turfgrass, Inc....................................21 www.genesisturfgrass.com
Home Field Fertilizer / Meadowspring Turf Farm..............................19 www.meadowspringturf.com Kesmac...............................................................7 www.kesmac.com Leading Edge Communications....................33 www.LeadingEdgeCommunications.com Luck Ecosystems...............................................3 www.luckstone.com McGill Premium Compost.............................34 www.mcgillsoilbuilder.com Mid-Atlantic STIHL..........................................5 www.stihldealers.com PBI Gordon Corporation...............................23 www.pbigordon.com Progressive Turf Equipment Inc....................18 www.progressiveturfequip.com Smith Seed Services........................................11 www.smithseed.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.
Smith Turf & Irrigation...................Back Cover www.smithturf.com Sod Production Services.................................25 www.sodproductionservices.com The Cutting Edge of VA.................................28 www.tce-va.com The Turfgrass Group........... Inside Back Cover www.theturfgrassgroup.com Trimax Mowing Systems.................................17 www.trimaxmowers.com VA Turf Equipment, LLC..............................30 www.vaturfequipment.com Virginia Sand & Stone......................................9 www.virginiasand.com Weed Man.......................................................34 www.weedmanfranchise.com Winrock Grass Farm Inc.................................29 www.winrockgrassfarm.com
Andy Rushing arushing@cgcfields.com Phone: (704) 634-9799 Toll Free – Office: (866) 753-1707
www.cgcfields.com
Agronomic LAwn mAnAgement
(757) 563-8588
www.FertilizewithALm.com we Are Accepting new empLoyment AppLicAtions. 404 network stAtion • chesApeAke, VA 23320
For franchise information go to www.weedmanfranchise.com or call (888) 321-9333 34 | Virginia Turfgrass Journal May/June 2019 www.vaturf.org
McGill Sports Turf Premium Compost improves turf aesthetics by adding beneficial microbes to soils, improving nutrient update, increasing porosity in heavy soils while improving water holding capacity in light sandy soils. Create a healthier soil environment and safer playing surface by applying 1/4” – 1/2” of STA Certified Premium Compost. McGill collects organic residuals to manufacture a branded line of premium compost soil amendments, serving the Carolina and Virginia markets since 1991.
For more information go to www.mcgillsoilbuilder.com or call 919-362-1161 634 Christian Chapel Church Rd. • New Hill, NC 27562.
A BreAkThrouGh In SuSTAInABIlITy
“ While researching TifTuf TM, i was impressed by the cultivar’s tolerance to adverse conditions, particu- larly drought, low fertility, traffic and cool weather. in the trial work i conducted, TifTuf TM was the first cultivar to green up in the spring, the last to go dormant during drought conditions and the most tolerant to traffic. Other notable characteristics of TifTuf TM include fine leaf texture and high turf density, as well as aggressive growth and establish- ment rates.” Alec Kowalewski, Ph.D., Oregon State University
As water restrictions tighten in many drought-stricken areas of the U.S., golf course superintendents, sports turf managers, property owners and sod producers increasingly value drought-tolerant turfgrass. Selected for its superior drought and wear tolerance, TiFTUF™ has been rigorously developed and tested for more than two decades by a team of researchers led by Dr. Wayne Hanna and Dr. Brian Schwartz at UGA’s Tifton Campus. TiFTUF™ was bred in 1992, as one of 27,700 experimental bermudagrass genotypes. in 1999, ninety of the most promising genotypes were planted under a rainout shelter and evaluated through 2001 under deficit irrigation. Under this drought stress, TiFTUF™ (tested as experimental name DT-1) maintained its quality and green color the longest. in 2011 continuing drought study testing established that TiFTUF™ requires 38% less water than Tifway. Since then, TiFTUF™ has been further tested in 19 drought-stress trials, 2 sports field wear tolerance trials and 4 irrigated, non-stress trials at The University of Georgia, The University of Florida, North Carolina State University, Oklahoma State University and Texas A&M University as part of the Federal Specialty Crop research initiative (SCri) grant. it has now been determined that TiFTUF™ will become the University research standard by which all drought tolerance will be determined. in 2013, TiFTUF™ was entered into the National Turfgrass evaluation Program (NTeP) bermudagrass trials where it is being evaluated in 20 locations across the United States until 2017. NTeP results from 2014 reveal that TiFTUF™ scored the highest quality ratings in the following test locations: North Carolina, Florida, Mississippi, Tennessee, Texas, Oklahoma and California. TiFTUF™ also ranked in the highest statistical group for quality in Alabama, Georgia, indiana, Kansas, Kentucky and Missouri. Fine textured and dense, TiFTUF™ exhibits several additional stellar qualities, including superior wear tolerance, early spring greenup, excellent fall color retention and extremely rapid grow-in. if you’re seeking a truly superior turfgrass for performance, aesthetics and sustainability, you’ve just found it.
“ With its combination of drought tolerance, aggressive growth and superior fall color, it has a great place in the industry.” Grady Miller, Ph.D., North Carolina State University “ it also survives winters in Kansas. With 94% survival, it is no different than Latitude 36 TM, Yukon, Patriot TM and Riviera.” Jared Hoyle, Ph.D., Kansas State University “ TifTuf TM performed very well on our large-scale Linear Gradient irrigation System at the university of florida. it maintained good quality with signif- icantly less water compared to the other commer- cially produced cultivars.” J. Bryan Unruh, Ph.D., University of Florida “ We found evidence that TifTuf TM used less water than Tifway 419 and TifSport. it’s just a very tough and drought-tolerant grass. As soon as it quits raining, TifTuf TM is still performing well, unlike others that can start to fail.” Brian Schwartz, Ph.D., University of Georgia “ With today’s extreme environmental conditions, there has never been a greater need for a superior drought- and wear-tolerant grass like TifTuf TM. its aggressive grow-in under cold and drought conditions makes TifTuf TM the environmentally and financially successful turfgrass choice. This rigorously tested grass that maintains its color and quality will create the most sustainable, environmentally friendly lawns, sports fields and golf courses around the world.” Ken Morrow, Co-Founder of The Turfgrass Group
USDA drought-tolerance trial (left to right): TiFTUF™, Latitude 36™ and Celebration™. Engineering Better Turfgrass One Blade At A Time
For more information on licensing opportunities, please contact: The Turfgrass Group, Inc. (770) 207-1500 or (770) 710-8139 www.THeTUrFGrASSGrOUP.com
We know you... Featuring: Adam Bachmeier | Bald Head Island Club, Golf Course Superintendent
We know what is important to you and what you are looking for. It’s not rocket science. We just need to have the right stuff when you need it, show up when you need us and make your success our priority. If you are building rockets, don’t call us. But if you want a partner that truly understands the demands of your job and has the answers you are looking for, we are here for you.
NORTH CAROLINA | SOUTH CAROLINA | TENNESSEE | VIRGINIA | BERMUDA Office 704.393.8873 Orders 800.932.8676 www.smithturf.com
