The Turf Zone Podcast

Welcome to The Turf Zone podcast.

On this episode we preview presentations and activities for the procrastinators recertification seminar on June 11, 2026 in Maryland.

Introductory comments are from 8:00 AM to 8:10 AM with moderator Dr. Carroll.

From 8:10 AM to 9:00 AM will be a presentation titled “Thinking Outside the Chemical Box: Prospects for Alternative Approaches to Weed Management in Turf” by Dr. Daniel Buonaiuto, Assistant Professor, Department of Plant Science and Landscape Architecture, University of Maryland.

For the past half century, the field of weed science has been focused on chemically managing noxious weeds and invasive plants. While this focus has led to useful advances in weed control, it has also given rise to herbicide resistant weed genotypes and increased incidences of negative environmental and health impacts. Scientists are calling for a new weed science research agenda focused on integrating chemical control with mechanical, cultural and biological management approaches, but new research agendas take time, and the weeds are growing right now.

In this session we’ll survey the tools and techniques that are available right now that can aid turf professionals in managing problematic weeds with fewer chemicals. We’ll also discuss the potential for practitioner-research partnerships to rapidly advance our collective expertise in integrated weed management in turfgrass systems.

From 9:00 AM to 9:50 AM will be a presentation titled “Improving Dollar Spot Control While Reducing Fungicide Inputs” by Mr. Uday Kumar, Doctoral Candidate, Department of Plant Science and Landscape Architecture.

Dollar spot is the most common and costly disease on golf course fairways in the Mid-Atlantic region, and most courses rely heavily on calendar-based fungicide programs to keep it in check. This presentation covers two practical, research-backed approaches that can help superintendents get better control while reducing the number of sprays applied each season. Three years of field trials at the University of Maryland showed that timing fungicide applications using the Smith–Kerns dollar spot prediction model at the 20% threshold provided the same level of control as a standard 14-day calendar program while reducing applications by two to four sprays per season. In addition, nightly UVC irradiation delivered by an autonomous mower consistently suppressed dollar spot in lab, greenhouse, and field conditions. When UVC was combined with fungicides at 28-day intervals, turf quality remained acceptable while significantly reducing chemical inputs. Together, these tools offer a more precise and sustainable approach to dollar spot management on golf course fairways.

Presentations will break from 9:50 AM to 10:00 AM then resume with a presentation titled “IPM Strategies for Ornamental Landscape Diseases” from 10:00 AM to 10:50 AM presented by Dr. David Clement, Plant Pathologist, University of Maryland Extension.

Many landscape ornamental diseases require early diagnosis for effective management. Scouting is critical to finding symptoms early. This presentation will cover the common diseases in Maryland landscapes along with key diagnostic symptoms coupled with Integrated Pest Management strategies.

From 10:50 AM to 11:40 AM Mr. Geoffrey Rinehart, Senior Lecturer, Institute of Applied Agriculture, University of Maryland will present “Fertilizer Product Selection and Nanotechnology Use in Fertilizer Programs”

This presentation will provide information about what nanotechnology is and how it is being researched to improve the efficiency and efficacy of turf fertilizers and plant protectant products. In addition, this talk will encompass an overview of the major nitrogen fertilizer sources and their respective release characteristics. Timings for utilizing various major fertilizer sources for improved turfgrass health and effective nitrogen utilization will be discussed.

From 11:40 AM to 12:30 PM Dr. Mark Carroll. Associate Professor, Department of Plant Science and Landscape Architecture, University of Maryland will present “Organic Lawn Care: Principles, Science and Landscape Architecture, University of Maryland”

Synthetic fertilizers and pesticide treatments are often the primary chemical inputs in conventional lawn care; however, growing human health and environmental concerns have many homeowners seeking lawn care programs that are marketed as Natural or Organic. Natural and Organic programs emphasize the use of materials and practices that enrich soil organic matter and promote presence of organisms perceived to be beneficial to promoting plant health. This presentation will review the principles underlying an organic approach to turfgrass management and will provide an overview of the materials being used by lawn care operators in Maryland that offer organic or natural lawn care services. Difficulties in adhering to organic precepts when offering an organic or natural lawn care program will also be discussed.

From 12:30 PM to 1:15 PM the presentations will break for lunch and resume with a presentation titled “Pesticide and Fertilizer Spray Calibration Field Demonstration” from 1:15 PM to 2:00 PM by Steve Holman, Paint Branch Turfgrass Facility Research Technician.

For additional information about the event visit the Maryland Turfgrass Council website at www.mdturfcouncil.org

You have been listening to The Turf Zone Podcast. Follow The Turf Zone on X, Facebook and LinkedIn for all things turfgrass, featuring podcasts, magazines, events and more. Visit www.theturfzone.com for more.

The post Presentations and Activities for Procrastinators Recertification Seminar appeared first on The Turf Zone.

Welcome to The Turf Zone podcast. This episode covers the business behind the green with the article “How to Price Your Services for Profit” written by Kristina Kelly.

When it comes to running a turfgrass business, your work is rooted in results. Healthy lawns, properly installed sod, and satisfied customers are the visible signs of success. And behind every vibrant blade of grass is a business owner making daily decisions that impact their bottom line. One of the most important? Pricing.

Setting the right price for your services can feel like trying to hit a moving target. Charge too little, and you’re leaving money on the table or risking your ability to sustain operations. Charge too much, and you might struggle to stay competitive in your market. Whether you’re a seasoned professional or new to the industry, understanding how to price your services for profit is key to long-term stability and growth.

Know Your True Costs

Before setting any price, you need to understand what it actually costs to deliver your services. That means looking beyond just materials and labor. Your total cost should include direct and indirect expenses, such as:

If you’re only calculating based on materials and hourly labor, you may be unintentionally operating at a loss. Developing a simple spreadsheet or using job-costing software can help you track these figures and understand your cost per service. This step lays the foundation for profitable pricing.

Factor in Your Desired Profit Margin

Once you know your costs, it’s time to add your profit margin. This isn’t greedy. It’s necessary. Profit allows you to reinvest in your business, build a financial cushion, and pay yourself a fair wage as the owner. A healthy net profit margin in service industries typically ranges from 10 to 20 percent, though it may vary based on your service mix and market.

For example, if it costs you $2,000 to complete a sod installation job, and you want a 20 percent profit margin, your price should be at least $2,500. Many business owners make the mistake of only charging enough to cover costs, which can lead to financial stress or burnout down the road.

Understand the Market (But Don’t Let It Dictate Your Value)

Knowing what competitors charge is important, but it shouldn’t be your only reference point. Pricing strictly to match or undercut the competition can turn into a race to the bottom. Instead, use market research to understand the range of prices in your area, and then position yourself based on the value you provide.

If your work is high quality, your team is reliable, and you offer responsive customer service, you don’t need to be the cheapest option. Instead, you can charge what you’re worth and attract customers who recognize and value professionalism. That might mean saying no to some price-sensitive clients, but it will help you build a stronger, more sustainable client base in the long run.

Avoid the Temptation of Flat-Rate Guesswork

It can be tempting to offer flat-rate pricing to simplify your quotes, but this approach can backfire if it’s not backed by data. Every job is different, and variables like square footage, site conditions, soil prep, and access points can dramatically affect your costs. If you rely on gut instinct or round numbers to quote jobs, you may end up underbidding without realizing it.

Instead, develop a pricing model based on per-square-foot or per-hour rates that can be customized to each job. This approach also helps you educate your clients and show transparency in your pricing.

Build in a Buffer for Risk and Rework

Not every job goes according to plan. Weather delays, equipment breakdowns, and last-minute client changes can eat into your profitability. When calculating your price, include a small buffer to account for the unexpected. This might be an extra percentage added to your labor costs or a built-in contingency fee.

Additionally, consider how you’ll handle rework or warranty issues. If you offer a guarantee on sod establishment or turf health, make sure that’s reflected in your pricing structure. It’s better to plan for these scenarios than to absorb the cost later.

Your pricing shouldn’t be static. Costs increase over time, and so should your rates. Review your pricing annually (or more frequently if you experience major changes in labor or material costs). Communicate price increases clearly and professionally with clients and reinforce the value they receive. Most customers understand that inflation and industry dynamics affect pricing, especially if they trust the quality of your work.

Regular reviews can also help you identify services that may no longer be profitable, or spot opportunities to package offerings in a way that increases revenue.

Package and Upsell Strategically

One way to boost profitability is by offering bundled services or strategic upsells. For example, if you’re installing sod, you could offer irrigation system checks, soil testing, or seasonal fertilization packages. These added services not only increase the overall value of a job, but they also help position your business as a comprehensive turf solution provider.

Clients often appreciate a “one-stop shop” approach, especially when it simplifies their to-do list and increases the success of their lawn or landscape investment.

Know When to Walk Away

Finally, remember that not every job is the right fit. If a prospective client pressures you to lower your price or match a competitor’s rate without understanding the difference in service quality, it may be best to politely walk away. Saying no to low-margin work frees up your time and resources for jobs that are actually profitable.

It takes confidence and discipline, but walking away from the wrong clients is just as important to your bottom line as securing the right ones.

Pricing Done Right

Pricing is one of the most important decisions you make as a turfgrass professional and business owner. It requires a clear understanding of your costs, an honest evaluation of your value, and the willingness to protect your profit margins. When done right, pricing becomes more than a number on a quote—it becomes a reflection of your professionalism and the foundation of a thriving business.

By taking a thoughtful, data-driven approach to pricing, you’ll not only ensure the health of your business but also earn the trust and loyalty of clients who see the value in what you do.

You have been listening to The Turf Zone Podcast. Follow The Turf Zone on X, Facebook and LinkedIn for all things turfgrass, featuring podcasts, magazines, events and more. Visit www.theturfzone.com for more.

The post How to Price Your Services for Profit appeared first on The Turf Zone.

Welcome to The Turf Zone podcast. This episode features the article “Minimizing Spring Dead Spot” written by M. Aaron Tucker, Assistant Professor, Auburn University and Wendell J. Hutchens, Assistant Professor, University of Arkansas.

Introduction

Spring Dead Spot (SDS) is one of the most persistent and damaging diseases affecting warm-season turfgrasses that undergo winter dormancy. First documented in 1954 on a bermudagrass lawn in Stillwater, Oklahoma, SDS continues to challenge turf managers across the southern and transition zone of the United States (Wadsworth & Young, 1960; Tredway, 2009). This article outlines the biology of the disease, key infection periods, and the latest cultural and chemical strategies for effective management.

Pathogen Biology

SDS is caused by soil-borne fungi in the genus Ophiosphaerella,

Disease Cycle and Symptoms

The fungi that cause Spring Dead Spot are ectotrophic root-infecting pathogens, colonizing the outer surfaces of roots, rhizomes, and stolons, leading to necrosis. This damage predisposes turfgrass to winter injury, with symptoms emerging in spring due to the combined effects of fall infection and harsh winter conditions.

SDS is a monocyclic disease, with a single infection cycle per year. Infection occurs in late summer to early fall, when evening temperatures cool and soil temperatures drop consistently below 70°F. Symptoms appear in spring as circular or semi-circular patches of dead turf, ranging from six inches to several feet in diameter. Severe outbreaks can result in large, coalesced areas of turf loss, with recovery taking two to three months after green-up—making proactive management essential.

Cultural Management Strategies

Effective cultural management hinges on understanding the disease’s biology. Thatch and organic matter serve as reservoirs for pathogen survival. Practices such as core aerification,

Conversely, cultural practices such as verticutting and aerification on symptomatic turf in spring can actually hinder recovery. Mechanical stress on already damaged turf slows regrowth, so spring cultivation should be avoided. Proper fertilization, particularly nitrogen applications in late summer/fall and spring, supports plant health and recovery (Tredway, 2021; Hutchens et al., 2022). Ammonium sulfate has shown efficacy against O. herpotricha, while calcium nitrate is more effective against O. korrae—highlighting the importance of pathogen identification (Tredway, 2021).

Chemical Management Strategies

Chemical control with fungicides is most effective when timed correctly. Applications should occur during fall as soil temperatures drop consistently between 65-55°F. Current research is refining this window using the Battaglia-Hutchens cooling degree-day model to optimize timing (Battaglia et al., 2024).

The modern demethylation-inhibiting (DMI) fungicide mefentrifluconazole offers strong SDS suppression, while older DMIs like propiconazole and tebuconazole provide moderate efficacy (Clarke et al., 2020). Select succinate dehydrogenase-inhibiting (SDHI) fungicides—like isofetamid, penthiopyrad, and pydiflumetofen—also provide excellent control but carry a higher risk of resistance. Rotating SDHIs with DMIs is recommended to preserve efficacy.

Precision Application Technologies

Advancements in GPS-guided sprayers allow for targeted fungicide applications. Mapping disease areas in spring and early summer enables precise fall fungicide treatments, reducing both cost and environmental impact (Booth et al., 2021; Henderson et al., 2025).

Conclusion

Understanding pathogen biology, the disease cycle, and optimal application timing is essential for managing SDS. Continued research is uncovering pathogen-specific responses to cultural and chemical strategies, offering promising avenues for more refined and effective control.

Literature Cited

Battaglia, M., Hutchens, W. J., & Roberson, T. (2024, November). Development of a Fungicide Application Timing Model for Spring Dead Spot Using Cooling Degree-Days. In ASA, CSSA, SSSA International Annual Meeting. ASA-CSSA-SSSA.

Booth, J. C., Sullivan, D., Askew, S. A., Kochersberger, K., & McCall, D. S. (2021). Investigating targeted spring dead spot management via aerial mapping and precision-guided fungicide applications. Crop Science, 61(5), 3134-3144.

Clarke, B. B., Vincelli, P., Koch, P., & Chou, M. Y. (2020). Chemical control of turfgrass diseases 2024.

Henderson, C., Haak, D., Mehl, H., Shafian, S., & McCall, D. (2025). Precision mapping and treatment of spring dead spot in bermudagrass using unmanned aerial vehicles and global navigation satellite systems sprayer technology. Precision Agriculture, 26(2), 38.

Hutchens, W. J., Booth, J. C., Goatley, J. M., & McCall, D. S. (2022). Cultivation and Fertility Practices Influence Hybrid Bermudagrass Recovery from Spring Dead Spot Damage. HortScience, 57(2), 332-336.

Hutchens, W. J., Anders, J. K., Butler, E. L., Kerns, J. P., McCall, D. S., Miller, G. L., & Walker, N. R. (2025). Fifteen years of findings: Advancements in spring dead spot research from 2009 to 2024. Crop Science, 65(1), e21367.

Tredway, L. P., Tomaso-Peterson, M., Perry, H., & Walker, N. R. (2009). Spring dead spot of bermudagrass: A challenge for researchers and turfgrass managers. Plant Health Progress, 10(1), 32.

Tredway, L. P., Soika, M. D., Butler, E. L., & Kerns, J. P. (2021). Impact of nitrogen source, fall fertilizers, and preventive fungicides on spring dead spot caused by Ophiosphaerella korrae and O. herpotricha. Crop Science, 61(5), 3187-3196.

Wadsworth, D. F., & Young, H. C. (1960). Spring dead spot of bermudagrass. Plant Dis. Rep, 44, 516-518.

You have been listening to The Turf Zone Podcast. Follow The Turf Zone on X, Facebook and LinkedIn for all things turfgrass, featuring podcasts, magazines, events and more. Visit www.theturfzone.com for more.

The post Minimizing Spring Dead Spot appeared first on The Turf Zone.

Welcome to The Turf Zone podcast. This episode spotlights New England Sports Field Management Association member Ryan Restivo – Parks Superintendent for the Town of New Canaan Parks Department in New Canaan, Connecticut.

Read from New England Blade magazine.

How did you get your start in the sports field industry?

I’ve always had a passion for sports, the outdoors, and hard work. During high school and the early part of my collegiate career, I worked at a renowned golf course in Darien, Connecticut—Weeburn Country Club. I later joined Superintendent Doug Drugo and his grounds crew, where I gained hands-on experience maintaining high-level playing surfaces. That opportunity, combined with my love for sports, ultimately kickstarted my path into the turfgrass and sports field industry.

Where did you go from there?

That passion led me to earn a degree in Plant Sciences with a concentration in Turfgrass Management, along with a minor in General Business, from the University of Rhode Island. Along the way, I had the opportunity to work with outstanding teams, including the Weeburn Country Club grounds crew, the Gillette Stadium field crew, and the USGA at both the 2019 U.S. Junior Amateur and the 2024 U.S. Senior Open Championships.

Those experiences helped shape my approach to turf management and Parks and Recreation operations. Today, I serve as the Superintendent for the Town of New Canaan Parks Department.

Who was your mentor when you were first starting out in the industry, and why?

Other than my family and the work ethic they instilled in me, one of my most influential mentors was—and still is—Joshua Bergeron. Josh, who is three years older than me, was a fellow URI Turfgrass Management student and followed a very similar career path in both golf course and sports field management.

After graduating, Josh found success on the Gillette Stadium Field Crew before moving on to a different career path. Along with Field Crew Superintendent Jon Bengtson, Josh gave me the opportunity to intern with the Gillette Stadium Field Crew. To my younger self, that opportunity felt like a dream come true; to my adult self, it reinforced the belief that with hard work and the right opportunities, anything is possible.

In addition to Josh, I’ve been fortunate to learn from all of my professors at URI, as well as the many golf course and sports field professionals who have guided me throughout my career.

What’s the best business advice you’ve ever received?

While it’s not strictly business advice, the best guidance I’ve ever received is a saying I try to live by: “Find a job you enjoy doing, and you will never have to work a day in your life.” — Mark Twain

What is the next “game-changer” you see on the horizon for the sports turf industry?

The next major game-changer in the sports turf industry is the continued advancement of automated and GPS-based technology. Innovations such as automated paint machines and GPS-guided sprayers promote greater precision, reduce misapplications, and allow operators to focus more on detail and quality in their day-to-day work. While skilled labor remains essential and in high demand, advanced technology enables sports turf managers to be more accurate and consistent with field layouts and applications. I’ve had first-hand experience using automated paint machines, and I’ve seen how they improve efficiency and consistency.

What’s your favorite / most useful:

Equipment?

Ventrac 4520 & various attachments

Product?

Seed

Technology?

Tiny Mobile Robot Paint Machine

What advice would you share with people starting out in sports field management today?

My advice is to always ask questions and say yes to opportunities—as long as they’re safe. Don’t be afraid to ask supervisors and peers for clarification and make it a priority to understand the why behind everything you do. Ask yourself questions like, “Why am I applying this product?” “What is its mode of action?” or “Why am I doing it this way—and is there a more efficient approach?”

Opportunities often come when you least expect them, and growth happens when you step outside your comfort zone. If you’re hesitant but know the opportunity is safe, go for it. I can promise you that you’ll gain something valuable from the experience.

Can you share a bit about your family life and / or what you enjoy doing in your free time?

Family is everything to me. I come from a big family and am the youngest of three, and growing up, our lives revolved around sports and work. Those experiences helped shape who I am today. I consider myself a pretty simple guy—I enjoy spending time with my fiancée, Elizabeth, and with our families and friends. I like staying active and competitive, even if it’s through what I jokingly call “old man sports” like golf, cornhole, and pickleball. I also enjoy work-related and at-home projects. I see them as challenges that keep me engaged, help me continue learning, and contribute to improvements I can apply both professionally and in my day-to-day life.

What have you enjoyed most / find most beneficial about being a New England Sports Field Management Association member?

The most beneficial aspect of being a New England Sports Field Management Association member is the networking opportunities it provides. For newer members—those with five years of experience or less—it opens the door to the knowledge and insight of seasoned industry veterans. We can all admit that we’ve made mistakes and learned through trial and error, and having access to experienced professionals allows us to ask questions, learn more efficient ways to perform tasks and make better-informed decisions.

That networking also encourages the exchange of ideas, exposure to new technologies, and honest discussions about what works—and what doesn’t. It’s an invaluable resource that helps professionals at every stage of their career continue to grow and adapt.

You have been listening to The Turf Zone Podcast. Follow The Turf Zone on X, Facebook and LinkedIn for all things turfgrass, featuring podcasts, magazines, events and more. Visit www.theturfzone.com for more.

The post NE-SFMA Member Spotlight on Ryan Restivo appeared first on The Turf Zone.

Welcome to The Turf Zone podcast. This episode features the article “Influence of Management on the Microbiome of Turfgrass Systems” By Benjamin Snell, Graduate Student at North Carolina State University.

Home lawns, golf courses, and athletic fields account for the majority of the turf industry. A considerable amount of research has been conducted within these areas of the industry, with a primary focus on management strategies. Improving management strategies is crucial for turf managers to produce high-quality turf that is economically and environmentally sustainable. One area within the turfgrass industry where knowledge is limited is the impact of these management strategies on the soil microbiome. Previous research has demonstrated the benefits and importance of these microorganisms for plant health. Multiple claims have been made that organic products promote microbial growth, whereas traditional products, such as pesticides and synthetic fertilizers, can negatively affect these microorganisms. With the development and release of new molecular tools, more scientific conclusions can be drawn. Understanding whether and how turf management affects the soil microbiome is crucial for turf managers to sustain high-quality turf and maintain a beneficial soil microbiome.

To understand the influence of different management practices on soil microbiomes, a trial was designed to simulate a typical home lawn management plan, with treatments using traditional synthetic fertilizers and pesticides and others using OMRI-approved organic products. This trial was conducted at Lake Wheeler Turfgrass Research and Education Center in two popular homeowner grasses, zoysiagrass (Zoysia spp. Willd.) and tall fescue (Schedonorus arundinaceus (Schreb.)). Turfgrass quality, soil physical and chemical properties, and the soil microbiome have been measured for each treatment over the last year and will be measured for the final time two years after the initial sampling. The soil microbiome was characterized by extracting DNA from soil samples and submitting it for 16S/ITS sequencing. Using the raw sequencing reads, Qiime2 was used to identify the fungi and bacteria present in the trial. Soil samples were also collected from golf courses and athletic fields to determine how these management styles affect microbial communities. These samples include looking at creeping bentgrass (Agrostis stolonifera L.) and bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon (L.) Pers.) putting greens and athletic fields in North Carolina. The samples from these have been collected once and will be collected again one year after the initial sampling for comparison.

Visual data from the trials, focusing on the differences between organic and conventional management strategies, have been analyzed. After one year of treatments, a significant difference in turfgrass quality was observed among treatments in the tall fescue trial under disease pressure. Turfgrass quality is rated on a scale of 1-9, with one being the lowest and nine the highest. The highest turf quality was observed in the treatment that received both synthetic fertilizer and pesticides, which was significantly higher than the organic treatments, the synthetic fertilizer-only treatment (no fungicide applied), and the non-treated control. In the presence of disease, organic treatments, synthetic fertilizer-only treatments, and the non-treated control all resulted in decreased turf quality. Based on this preliminary data, organic treatments will begin to fail or have little effect on disease presence.

In addition to turf quality, initial sequencing data from the tall fescue and zoysiagrass trial have been analyzed. This data was collected before any treatments were applied. These preliminary results indicate that microbiome communities differ significantly between tall fescue and zoysiagrass. These findings are expected, given how different environmental factors can impact these communities. More sampling, analysis, and evaluation will help determine whether and how these management practices affect these communities. Golf course and athletic field samples are currently being analyzed to identify further how various cultural practices influence these microbial communities. Understanding how management practices influence soil microbiomes will encourage managers to promote a more diverse microbial community while maintaining a highly acceptable turf stand.

You have been listening to The Turf Zone Podcast. Follow The Turf Zone on X, Facebook and LinkedIn for all things turfgrass, featuring podcasts, magazines, events and more. Visit www.theturfzone.com for more.

The post Influence of Management on the Microbiome of Turfgrass Systems appeared first on The Turf Zone.

Welcome to The Turf Zone Podcast. This episode features the article “Turfgrass Research, Partnership, and Progress: 10 Years of the Virginia Tech Turfgrass Research Classic & Field Day”

Many of Virginia’s turfgrass industry professionals will gather at Independence Golf Club on Monday, May 18, 2026, to celebrate a major milestone: the 10th anniversary of the Virginia Tech Turfgrass Research Classic & Field Day. The inaugural event was held on May 15, 2017 across the James at the Country Club of Virginia’s Tuckahoe Creek and James River courses, during establishment of the VT Turf Team’s partnership with leadership at Independence Golf Club. In fact, sprigs were spread on Independence Golf Club’s Bear Short Course that evening in what has turned into a decade-long partnership that has reshaped on-site research in Virginia. Hosted in Midlothian, VA, this year’s event is designed to bring together golf course superintendents, sports turf managers, lawn care specialists, sod producers, landscapers, vendors, and other green-industry professionals for a full day of learning, networking, and support for turfgrass research.

At its heart, the event showcases the strong partnership that has powered a decade of progress. For the past ten years, the Virginia Golf Course Superintendents Association (VGCSA) has been the driving force behind the Turfgrass Research Classic, providing leadership and support that have helped raise more than $500,000 for Virginia Tech turfgrass research through the Virginia Turfgrass Foundation (VTF). Beginning in 2026, VGCSA will continue this role as the Title Partner of the Turfgrass Research Classic & Field Day, working in partnership with the VTF, Virginia Tech, and our allied associations to expand the event’s reach and impact across the broader turfgrass industry.

This anniversary year also marks an important evolution in how the event is organized. Beginning in 2026, the Virginia Turfgrass Foundation is taking the lead in coordinating both the Field Day and the Research Golf Tournament, in close collaboration with VGCSA, the Virginia Tech Turfgrass Team, and industry partners. Centralizing sponsorships through the Foundation streamlines the process for supporters, maximizes nonprofit benefits, and ensures that contributions are tax-deductible and directed to Virginia Tech Turfgrass Research. The result is a more efficient, aligned effort that benefits the entire turfgrass community and strengthens the future of research and education in Virginia.

The day will begin with the Virginia Tech Turfgrass Field Day from 8:30 to 11:30 a.m., featuring a dynamic walking tour around the Independence Golf Club’s Bear Short Course. Multiple research stations will be set up across the property, where attendees can hear directly from leading researchers and industry experts. While this event is held on a golf course, most of the topics covered apply across a variety of turfgrass uses. These topics include updates on winterkill and spring recovery strategies, water-use efficiency, sensing tools and technology, targeted application strategies, turfgrass pathology and disease prevention, turfgrass weed management, and turfgrass entomology and pollinator protection. Breakfast and lunch, hosted by the Virginia Turfgrass Foundation, will give participants time to connect with colleagues and continue discussions beyond each station.

The afternoon will shift to the Turfgrass Research Classic golf tournament, with a shotgun start at 12:00 p.m. Participants will tee off alongside fellow professionals, sponsors, and researchers in a fun, friendly competition that directly supports turfgrass research and education. All proceeds benefit the Virginia Turfgrass Foundation and the Virginia Tech Turfgrass Research Program, meaning every round played helps fuel the science that drives the profession forward. Whether attendees are competitive golfers or simply enjoy a day on the course, the tournament offers camaraderie, networking, and the satisfaction of investing in the industry’s future.

Vendors and sponsors will also play a central role in this year’s celebration. The 10th anniversary format offers expanded opportunities for engagement and visibility, including vendor tables, on-site demonstrations, high-visibility sponsorship packages, and broad promotional reach across the turfgrass industry. For the first time, all sponsorships and donations will flow through the Virginia Turfgrass Foundation, providing charitable tax deductions. These contributions help fund essential research, student scholarships, needed equipment, and educational programming that strengthen Virginia’s turfgrass sector and support the next generation of leaders.

As the event marks ten years of partnership, innovation, and shared commitment, organizers emphasize that this is more than just another field day or golf tournament. It is a celebration of the industry’s collective achievements and a strategic investment in the continued advancement of turfgrass science in Virginia.

Those interested in attending, sponsoring, or exhibiting are encouraged to register or secure their support by visiting

Presented by the Virginia Turfgrass Foundation in partnership with Virginia Tech Turfgrass Research, the VGCSA, and the VTC, the 2026 Virginia Tech Turfgrass Research Classic & Field Day promises to be a milestone event the entire turfgrass industry can rally behind.

You have been listening to The Turf Zone Podcast. Follow The Turf Zone on X, Facebook and LinkedIn for all things turfgrass, featuring podcasts, magazines, events and more. Visit www.theturfzone.com for more.

The post 10 Years of the Virginia Tech Turfgrass Research Classic & Field Day appeared first on The Turf Zone.

This episode of The Turf Zone Podcast features the article “Turf Tips” by Dave Han, Ph.D. with Auburn University and Alabama Extension.

When hot weather arrives, our warm season grasses will soon shift into high gear and simply keeping up with them can be a challenge. Here are some reminders of what to expect and look out for in the transition from spring to summer.

Temperatures will still fluctuate

Most parts of Alabama aren’t truly safe from all possibility of frost until mid-April. Even then, it’s possible to get stuck into a pattern of warm days (80 F or even warmer) but cool nights (temps falling into the 50s). This temperature pattern holds back the growth of warm-season grasses. They may have been green for weeks, but don’t really start to show fast lateral growth until the soil temperature stays above 70 degrees consistently. This usually takes both warm days and nighttime lows remaining in the 60s.

Slow lateral growth in April and May frustrates many turf managers and their clients, especially if the turf experienced some injury from cold, disease or pests during the winter. It’s important to remember that as long as the soil is still relatively cool, early fertilizer applications will have little effect on the rate that grasses fill in damaged areas. It’s the temperature that holds back spreading growth this time of year.

Warm season turfgrass that is “stuck” in greenup mode can also be more sensitive to postemergence herbicides than it will be during hot weather. This is especially true with centipedegrass, but can happen with any species. Many postemergence herbicides have language on the label that urges caution when applying them during spring greenup, or outright recommends waiting until the grass is completely out of dormancy to apply them. This can take until well into May in north Alabama.

Annual insect pests will be laying eggs soon

For those in the sandy soils of the coastal plain, now is the time to think about getting ready to apply insecticides to areas that showed mole cricket tunneling damage earlier in the spring. Like any insect pest, mole crickets are easiest to control when they are very young – just hatched is perfect! They usually lay their eggs in from April to May, and eggs take 3-4 weeks to hatch. That means May is the perfect month to get an insecticide with a good residual activity into the soil so that new nymphs are killed right after they hatch, and don’t ever have the opportunity to grow into the larger stages that can damage turf with their tunnelling.

Likewise, white grubs will soon be pupating and adults usually emerge to mate and lay eggs in the May-July time frame, depending on the exact species of white grub. As is the case with mole crickets, an application of an insecticide with a soil residual measured in months will head off problems with grub damage in the fall. Scout for grubs in the spring by cutting back the sod and looking for the larvae, or count adults as they fly by catching them in pheromone traps.

You have been listening to The Turf Zone Podcast. Follow The Turf Zone on X, Facebook and LinkedIn for all things turfgrass, featuring podcasts, magazines, events and more. Visit www.theturfzone.com for more.

The post Turf Tips appeared first on The Turf Zone.

Welcome to The Turf Zone Podcast. This episode features a summary of bills of interest from the end of the 2026 Legislative Session of the Maryland General Assembly. Prepared by Percy Public Affairs and the Maryland Turfgrass Council. Read from MTC Turf News magazine.

At the stroke of midnight on Monday, April 13th, the Maryland General Assembly adjourned (SINE DIE) the 2026 Legislative Session in Annapolis, Maryland.

This year, the Maryland General Assembly introduced a total of 3,473 individual pieces of legislation (1406-Senate/2067-House) – this included proposed policy bills, legislative bond initiatives, and joint resolutions.

During the 90-Day Session, Percy Public Affairs flagged multiple bills of interest for the Maryland Turfgrass Council (MTC). Below is summary of the legislation that MTC took action on in Annapolis.

Bill Summary

House Bill 91, entitled; “Agriculture – Neonicotinoid Pesticides – Prohibitions” – This bill prohibits a person from distributing, selling, or using any corn, soybean, or wheat seeds that have been coated in or treated with a neonicotinoid pesticide. In addition, the bill generally prohibits a person from using a neonicotinoid pesticide to treat outdoor ornamental plants and turf, except as specified. The bill authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to temporarily suspend both of these prohibitions under specified conditions.

House Bill 164, entitled; “State Buildings and State Highways – Collection and Disposal of Yard Waste” – This bill generally prohibits State employees or contractors from disposing of yard waste collected on the grounds of a State building or a State highway in a single-use plastic container. All such yard waste must be collected in a container that (1) will not be discarded with the yard waste or (2) is a compostable paper bag.

MTC and MASFMA’s Position: Opposed. Bill Status: FAILED.

House Bill 164, entitled; “Gasoline-Powered Leaf Blowers – Purchase and Use – Prohibitions” – This bill, subject to specified exceptions, prohibits, (1) beginning July 1, 2026, the State from purchasing a gasoline-powered leaf blower and (2) beginning January 1, 2031, the use of a gasoline-powered leaf blower by the State and its contractors and subcontractors working on State-owned land. Each State agency in the Executive Branch must monitor and enforce that agency’s compliance with the bill. The bill also establishes (1) a provision relating to the authority of local governments to enact standards relating to gasoline powered leaf blowers and (2) a requirement for the State and its contractors and subcontractors to comply with local standards that are at least as stringent as the bill’s standards when managing State property.

MTC and MASFMA’s Position: Support. Bill Status: Failed.

House Bill 321, entitled; “Environment – Synthetic Turf Industry and Disposal Study – Deadline Extension” – This bill extends the deadline, from July 1, 2026, to January 15, 2027, by which the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) must submit a specified report relating to synthetic turf to specified committees of the General Assembly.

MTC and MASFMA’s Position: Opposed. Bill Status: Failed.

House Bill 833/ Senate Bill 53, entitled; “Commission to Advance Lithium-Ion Battery Safety in Maryland – Reestablishment” – This bill reestablishes the Commission to Advance Lithium-Ion Battery Safety in Maryland. The Office of the State Fire Marshal (OSFM) must provide staff for the commission. Commission members may not receive compensation but are entitled to reimbursement for expenses. By December 1, 2026, the commission must submit an interim report on the progress and status of the commission to the Legislative Policy Committee. By December 1, 2027, the commission must report its findings and recommendations to the Governor and the General Assembly. MTC was amended into the final bills as a new member of the Commission and will be an active participant.

MTC and MASFMA’s Position: Support. Bill Status: Passed.

House Bill 1237, entitled; “Pesticide Applications – Subscription Contract Requirements and Registry Establishment” – This bill requires the Maryland Department of Agriculture (MDA) to establish a Residential Pollinator Protection and Neighbor Notification Registry for the purpose of registering individuals residing in residential areas who are interested in receiving notice of pesticide applications on contiguous or adjacent properties. MDA may charge a reasonable registration fee to an applicant for inclusion in the registry; however, MDA must waive the fee under specified conditions. The bill establishes related requirements for MDA, pesticide business licensees, pesticide applicators, and public agency permittees. In addition, the bill establishes requirements for a pesticide business licensee that has a subscription contract for pest control with a residential customer.

MTC and MASFMA’s Position: Support with Amendments. Bill Status: Passed.

You have been listening to The Turf Zone Podcast. Follow The Turf Zone on X, Facebook and LinkedIn for all things turfgrass, featuring podcasts, magazines, events and more. Visit www.theturfzone.com for more.

The post Maryland Bills of Interest Summary appeared first on The Turf Zone.

Welcome to The Turf Zone Podcast. This episode features the article “What’s New with Wetting Agents” written by Michael Fidanza, Ph.D., Stan Kostka, Ph.D. and Tom Malehorn

Soil surfactants are commonly called “wetting agents” in the turfgrass industry, and there are many, many wetting agent products in today’s turf market. In 2012, the USGA Green Section article — Understanding the different wetting agent chemistries — advanced our understanding of these products in a logical manner. Another good article on wetting agents also appeared in the USGA Green Section — Factors to consider when developing a wetting agent program. Both of those articles and more can be found at: https://tinyurl.com/4f2v8m8r. Recently, wetting agent categories were proposed in a further attempt help the end user understand their chemical properties: https://tinyurl.com/ywyexm4x.

Overall, in golf course and sports turf management, wetting agents are employed to improve infiltration, mitigate water repellency (i.e., hydrophobic conditions), and enhance hydration in soils and rootzones. Wetting agents also are useful for enhancing certain soil directed pesticides, improving flushing of excess salts, indirectly helping turf survive the winter, and improving spring green-up and recovery.

Retainers versus Penetrants?

The marketing of some wetting agent products can lead one to believe there is precise knowledge of clearly definable modes-of-action, that specific desired outcomes under diverse environmental conditions can prescribe how and when they should be applied, that soil responses can be turned on and off simply by changing what product is applied, or that product “X” can dramatically influence a specific turfgrass surface condition or expectation.

These sorts of questions have only been researched on a handful of products. Researchers at the University of Arkansas, University of Wisconsin, Michigan State University, and the University of Wageningen (Netherlands) have demonstrated that certain wetting agents can increase soil water content under droughty conditions, and lower soil water content during periods of excessive rainfall. Keep in mind, most of these results come from turf growing on sand or sandy loam rootzones. Does this mean those wetting agents tested are physically “holding onto” (retaining) water in the rootzone, or “pushing” (penetrating) water through the rootzone? Our soil physics colleagues would question that statement. The terms retainer and penetrant are not listed in the soil science terminology, but these terms are used to market wetting agents.

Data remain lacking on the nature and differentiation of products sold as “wetters”, “water retainers”, and “penetrants”. There are many claims based on reports-from-the-field or on misperceptions or misinterpretations of visual observations.

When considering a wetting agent ask for thorough, documented, replicated field research (either from university or industry researchers). A recent article in the USGA Green Section provides further insight into this topic:

O’Brien, D., Fidanza, M., Kostka, S., and Richardson, M. 2023. Penetrants vs. Retainers: Understanding Wetting Agent Clamins and the Science Behind them. USGA Green Section Record.

https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/course-care/green-section-record/61/issue-10/penetrants-vs–retainers–understanding-wetting-agent-claims-and.html

Over the past two decades, wetting agents have moved from products applied to correct localized dry spots to broader applications in water management, however, marketing claims often outpace the science. Research continues to build upon our understanding of what wetting agents can and cannot do. Understanding the mode-of-action, effects on soil physical phenomena, and effects on soil biology and rhizosphere dynamics are the future. A foundation is being built to support science-based uses of these unique soil amendment compounds.

Conclusion

Dr. Mike Fidanza ([email protected]) is a Professor of Plant and Soil Science at the Berks Campus, Pennsylvania State University, Reading, PA; Dr. Stan Kostka ([email protected]) is a Visiting Scholar at Penn State Berks Campus; Tom Malehorn ([email protected]) is a Penn State turf alum and principal scientist with iGin Research, in Westminster, MD.

You have been listening to The Turf Zone Podcast. Follow The Turf Zone on X, Facebook and LinkedIn for all things turfgrass, featuring podcasts, magazines, events and more. Visit www.theturfzone.com for more.

The post What’s New with Wetting Agents appeared first on The Turf Zone.

Welcome to The Turf Zone Podcast. This episode features the article “Autonomous Mowing on Trial” written by Landon Erbrick, Paul Bartley, Mark Hoffman and Tanzeel Rehman of Auburn University and J. Bryan Unruh of the University of Florida.

As the landscape industry faces mounting labor challenges, tightening environmental regulations, and growing pressure to improve efficiency, the emergence of mowing technologies are generating widespread attention. But do these machines actually deliver on their promises of cost savings, labor efficiency, and sustainability?

A multi-disciplinary team of researchers from Auburn University, the University of Florida, and the University of Georgia has launched a multi-year research initiative to answer that very question. Supported by industry partners and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), this effort is part of a larger grant-funded project titled “Landscape Equipment Sustainability Strategies: Do More with LESS.” The project involves a comprehensive evaluation of large-platform autonomous mowers to assess their real-world performance, cost-effectiveness, and operational safety across a variety of landscape conditions.

Why This Research Matters

The adoption of automation in turf care is no longer a theoretical discussion. Manufacturers have introduced commercial autonomous platforms, and early adopters are already deploying them on sports fields, university campuses, and business parks, yet independent research remains scarce on the topic.

Most prior studies have focused on small-platform robotic mowers primarily used in residential settings. Traditionally, these machines relied on perimeter wires and random navigation patterns, limiting their efficiency and scalability. However, recent technological advancements—such as real-time kinematic (RTK) positioning and EPOS (Exact Positioning Operating System) navigation—have dramatically improved the precision, reliability, and adaptability of small autonomous mowers. This rapid evolution in positioning and sensing technologies has expanded the potential for autonomy in turf management far beyond the homeowner market.

Building on these advancements, large-platform autonomous mowers, that is, commercial-scale machines capable of operating both manually and autonomously, have now entered the market. These systems aim to address many of the industry’s most pressing challenges, including labor shortages, rising operational costs, and increasing sustainability demands. Our research seeks to evaluate these emerging technologies through a rigorous, data-driven approach to help landscape contractors, municipalities, and turf managers make informed decisions about integrating autonomy into large-scale operations.

What We’re Testing & Why It Matters

This project is evaluating large-platform commercial mowers across four equipment categories:

We’re conducting real-world field trials using standardized test plots with varying levels of landscape complexity, from open square acres to obstacle-rich environments designed to mimic trees, bed edges, and other site constraints. Our goal is to understand how different combinations of power source (gas vs. battery) and operator mode (manual vs. autonomous) influence performance, cost, safety, and usability in professional landscaping scenarios.

What We’re Measuring

Across hundreds of acres of mowing in diverse conditions, we’re tracking:

Together, these data will help landscape contractors, fleet managers, and municipal buyers evaluate whether, how, and when to adopt autonomous and battery-powered equipment based on real numbers, not hype or pressure.

Safety and Supervision Under the Microscope

We’re also conducting obstacle detection trials using mannequins and field hazards at multiple approach angles to understand how these machines interpret and react to real-world variables.

Our team is especially interested in hybrid operation strategies, where a single operator supervises an autonomous unit while mowing with another, significantly boosting productivity without a full leap into autonomy.

Implications for the Green Industry

This research comes at a critical time. As noise restrictions, emissions regulations (e.g., California AB 1346), and labor shortages reshape the industry, many contractors are asking: What’s the smart next investment?

By delivering field-tested, brand-agnostic insights, our goal is to help professionals:

You have been listening to The Turf Zone Podcast. Follow The Turf Zone on X, Facebook and LinkedIn for all things turfgrass, featuring podcasts, magazines, events and more. Visit www.theturfzone.com for more.

The post Autonomous Mowing on Trial appeared first on The Turf Zone.