The Turf Zone Podcast

The Turf Zone

All Your Turf News In One Place

Episodes

  1. 10h ago

    Anyone for Tennis – Research?

    Welcome to The Turf Zone podcast. This episode features the article “Anyone for Tennis – Research?” written by Dr. Scott Ebdon – Emeritus Professor, University of Massachusetts – Amherst and Mike Buras – former Director of Grounds, Longwood Cricket Club, Chestnut Hill, MA For accompanying tables, graphs, photos and references see the Summer 2026 issue of New England Blade magazine available on www.theturfzone.com Tennis on Grass – USA There are 26 million tennis players in the USA, and these numbers have increased by 33% since the COVID years. Less than 1% of tennis courts are grass with most grass courts found in the Northeast region. Sports grass managers may not truly appreciate the intensity of traffic (wear) observed along grass court baselines. Previous research has shown that the intensity of traffic along court baselines is 6 times the intensity of elite soccer (Newell and Wood, 2000). The term “pace”’ in tennis is the speed that tennis play (and the ball) moves and is determined largely by the vertical height of the bounce off the court. The higher the vertical bounce, the slower the play. Slower play is preferred by players. Pace on grass is notoriously fast. Grass Tennis Research – UMass Amherst In 2016 several studies were initiated at the Troll Turf Research Center (South Deerfield, MA). The two main objectives were (i) wear tolerance or carrying capacity (hours of play) along court baselines and (ii) the factors affecting tennis pace. Eight turfgrass species were compared within each of three single courts (planted as replicates). The eight species-cultivars were shown to have superior wear tolerance. The grasses were planted as pure stands. The Troll Center was open to the public for daily play from 2017 to 2024. Play averaged 125 hours during the tennis season (June 1 to September 1). Grass Court Maintenance The maintenance of grass courts at the Troll Center used a daily mowing schedule at 5/16 inches (clippings collected), rolling 4 to 6 times per week with a 2,200 lb. roller, sprayable fertilizers (spoon-feeding) on a 2 to 3-week schedule to apply 3.15 lb. N per 1,000 ft² per season, and sprayable (preventative) fungicides. Heavy rolling and daily mowing was especially important to promoting consistent (uniform) tennis ball bounce and play. Weekly measurements were scheduled after significant soil drying – irrigation was used sparingly to prevent any visible turfgrass dehydration. Tennis Ball Bounce The rules for measuring vertical ball bounce were established in 1925 (Miller, 2006) and are outlined in Table 2. Higher ball bounce (slower pace) on a tennis surface is due to greater velocity of the ball in the vertical direction. Soft grass absorbs more energy indicated by greater surface deformation – less energy is available for ball bounce in the vertical direction. Ball bounce must be uniform-consistent and representative of ball bounce across the entire court surface. Measurements of Hardness – 0.5-kg Clegg Hardness is measured with the Clegg impact soil tester and has been used on grass courts since the mid-1980s (Holmes and Bell, 1986) and used currently to predict tennis ball bounce (Ebdon et al., 2025). Surface hardness is measured as gravities (g, also referred to as “Gmax” in the literature). The energy of impact using the 0.5-kg Clegg (30 cm drop height) conforms closest to the tennis ball bounce test. The 0.5-kg Clegg and the tennis ball bounce test are highly correlated compared to heavier Clegg devices used in sport grass (2.25-kg Clegg, 45 cm drop height) or devices used in golf (USGA TruFirm, 1.95-kg, 48 cm drop height). These heavier devices are not as effective for tennis (Ebdon et al., 2025). Tennis Ball Bounce (BB) and Clegg Hardness – Courts Under Play Over the course of this 10-year study some 3,200-ball bounce impacts and hardness measurements were taken on various grass court surfaces. The results presented in Table 3 for the different surfaces are comparable because accepted (standard) methods were used. Wimbledon center court (perennial ryegrass courts) for the 2011 Championship were bouncing at 52 inches or 91% of concrete. All of the perennial ryegrass courts at the Troll Center and the Tennis HOF satisfied the minimum standard of 70% concrete. Kentucky bluegrass courts at the Troll Center were bouncing near 70% (69%) of concrete. The fine leaf fescue mixture was among the highest in BB averaging 76% of concrete. This species, however, is the least tolerant of tennis traffic, discussed below. Traditional golf species such as creeping bentgrass-Poa grass courts were bouncing below the 70 to 80% concrete standard. Tennis Ball Bounce – Uniformity Consistent BB across the tennis surface is important for uniform play. Smooth-hard concrete is the most unform and consistent surface. All other surfaces are compared to the BB consistency of smooth concrete. The concrete surface has an average hardness of 865 g compared to Wimbledon hardness of 260 g. Smooth concrete has a BB uniformity of “1.” Wimbledon BB uniformity for the 2011 Championship was measured at “2.1” – twice the variability of concrete. Player perception of BB uniformity (relative to concrete) is interpretated as “an odd bounce.” One consistent trend observed in Table 3 indicates that increasing surface hardness promotes uniform ball bounce and the chances for odd bounces decrease. Therefore, selecting species such as perennial ryegrass affording harder surfaces and higher BB (slower play) have a tendency for more consistent (uniform) play. Many bentgrass courts (or greens) and Poa annua courts that are prone to thatch are the least consistent surfaces with BB uniformity of “7” and higher relative to concrete. Court Hardness to Satisfy Standards – 70 to 80% Concrete Research at the Troll Center indicated 150 to 170 g of surface hardness is needed for tennis balls to bounce to standards – 70% (40 inches) to 80% of concrete (46 inches) (Ebdon et al., 2025). Tennis BB of 80% concrete is not easy to achieve. To that end, surface soil moisture is extremely important, discussed below. For the 2011 Wimbledon Grass Court Championship, 100% of all BB impacts were at 80% of concrete. At the Troll Center and the Tennis HOF approximately 16 to 18% of all impacts satisfied the 80% concrete standard. Following uniform drying of the Wimbledon soil, 24% of all BB impacts exceeded the minimum standard for concrete. Tennis play at Wimbledon is ideal for the Grass Court Championships because of the slow pace and consistent BB. Tennis Ball Bounce – Surface Soil Moisture Soil moisture using TDR (3-inch probes) was measured weekly during the tennis season concurrently with surface hardness and ball bounce. In tennis, the ball bounce test is a surface phenomenon. This is the main reason why the low energy impact of the light weight (0.5-kg) Clegg is more effective in predicting tennis ball bounce than heavier devices (2.25-kg Clegg or 1.95-kg TruFirm) (Ebdon et al., 2025). Similarly, longer TDR (5-inch) rods are not as effective as 3-inch probes – it is the immediate surface moisture that matters in tennis ball bounce. Soil drying will promote harder surfaces but this depends on the soil texture and the mineralogy (clay content) of the soil. Table 5 compares soil drying and surface hardness between the Troll Center and Wimbledon soils. The gains in surface hardness from 38% soil drying are very different between the Troll Center soil (silt loam, 12% clay) and Wimbledon soil (sandy clay loam, 23% clay). At the same soil moisture deficit (38% soil drying), 60% greater surface hardness is observed on Wimbledon soil (77 g increase – Wimbledon vs. 48 g increase – Troll Center). The Troll silt loam increases in hardness only 3.2 g with 1% soil drying compared to 5.5 g with 1% drying for Wimbledon soil. For most soils it is believed that soil drying is more important in providing a hard tennis surface than soil compaction by rolling. Any natural soil drying will promote higher ball bounce. Recent research indicates that soil drying to 40% soil moisture depletion causes minimal turf dehydration with fine textured soils (Bruan et al., 2022). Figure 2 presents 1122 pairs of vertical ball bounces and soil moisture (3-inch TDR) measured on Troll Center perennial ryegrass courts during a 17-week period. Prior to soil drying (week 1), tennis ball bounce was below standards (66% of concrete) while after progressive soil drying (week 17) ball bounce exceeded standards (83% concrete). Species Wear Tolerance – Carrying Capacity Grass cover after tennis play ended is presented in Table 6 along with the carrying capacity (hours of play) to wear baselines to 70% grass cover. Following 2-years of study perennial ryegrass and Kentucky bluegrass exhibited significantly better wear tolerance (≥ 65% grass cover) and greater carrying capacity (≥ 70 hrs. of play to 70% cover) compared to bentgrass and fine fescue species. Traditional golf species (bentgrass) are comparatively less tolerant of tennis traffic compared to improved cultivars of Kentucky bluegrass and perennial ryegrass – providing the cultivars are tolerant of 5/16-inch mowing heights. Of all the species-cultivars tested, the fine fescue mixture was the least tolerant of tennis traffic (24% grass cover) with the lowest carrying capacity (20 hours). Interestingly, the fine fescue mixture used in the tennis study was the same mixture used on the golf greens at the 2015 US Open (Chambers Bay, WA). This is further evidence as to the intensity of the traffic that is often underestimated in tennis. The Court Playability The highest priority should be given to planting wear tolerant grasses adapted to tennis play. Grasses with significantly lower carrying capacity will wear-down faster under the same hours of play. The loss of grass cover during the tennis season has a significant impac

    14 min

  2. Jun 19

    Testing Ground

    Welcome to The Turf Zone podcast. This episode features the article “Testing Ground” featured in Tennessee Turfgrass magazine. UT turfgrass researchers have invented a device to test the playability of football fields, soccer pitches, and other surfaces—with the goal of keeping athletes safe. In 2018, the NFL scheduled a game for a neutral site in Mexico. Though the field had passed mandatory tests like surface hardness, the league’s players association had concerns about the safety of the field. So they turned to Distinguished Professor of Turfgrass Science and Management John Sorochan to represent their interests. Sorochan advised that there were too many inconsistencies in the field and that the lack of rooting was a serious issue. He argued that an inconsistent and unstable surface is an unsafe surface. And his advocacy helped get the game moved to a safer field. For Sorochan, the experience revealed the need across multiple sports for a better way to test the playability and compliance of natural grass surfaces. Together, he and Kyley Dickson (BS ’12, MS ’14, PhD ’17), researcher and co-director of UT’s Center for Athletic Field Safety, invented a solution that has surpassed its original goal: the fLEX Device. This portable machine realistically simulates the motion of an athlete’s foot striking the ground, using a 3D-printed foot outfitted with a real cleat. “There were machines out there to test artificial turf—years before, Dr. Sorochan helped AstroTurf develop one,” Dickson says. “But nothing was specific to natural grass. “We also wanted to go beyond the static vertical load, rotational, and slide tests that existing tools used,” he continues. “We put sensors around the 3D-printed foot and ankle to measure energy that would be transferred back to the athlete. This makes fLEX unique.” Development of the fLex Device reflects the driving force behind sports turf research at UT: the human impact of athlete–surface interactions. “Our tool to measure what athletes would feel on natural grass has turned out to be equally applicable for synthetic turf, running tracks, even basketball courts—all surfaces but ice for hockey—to understand the effects on athletes,” Sorochan says. A Team Effort Producing the fLEX Device was interdisciplinary from the start. Sorochan and Dickson hired metal workers to build their device, mechanical engineers to run calculations, and a recent UT computer science graduate to develop software to collect and interpret sensor data. UT kinesiology and biomechanics experts scientifically validated the device. “At the biomechanics lab, fLEX struck the force plate like a human athlete would,” Sorochan says. “We learned how to calibrate it to simulate foot strikes for different-sized athletes, from a 350-pound NFL athlete down to a 35-pound kid playing soccer at school.” They partnered with UT Athletics for real-world testing. After football games at Neyland Stadium, researchers would collect data from more than 70 spots across the field to form a comprehensive picture of its condition. “Neyland is probably the most tested stadium anywhere,” Sorochan laughs. And when the Lady Vols soccer team needed to change cleats, the fLEX Device informed that decision by measuring the load different shoes put on players’ bodies. “Being a Vol means being part of a team,” Sorochan says. “So many Vols have helped us develop and test fLEX.” From Concept to Commercialization Early prototypes involved manually ratcheting and releasing gears. When Sorochan and Dickson collected feedback from field managers and student researchers who used the device, everyone agreed: there were too many components and too many data points. “To make a real-world impact,” Sorochan says, “it had to be simpler for field managers and other turf professionals to use, understand, and benefit from our device. We also needed to scale up in terms of production and audience. UT and UT Research Foundation played important roles in accomplishing that and commercializing our invention.” In 2024, Sorochan and Dickson received the inaugural Chancellor’s Innovation Fund award. They focused those funds on automating the device and streamlining the user experience. UT Research Foundation helped them patent their technology, connect with business advisors, and put their product on the market. Today, users set and release the gears with the touch of a button. The screen displays three key data points: surface traction, surface hardness, and amount of energy returned to the athlete. The software automatically generates a report complete with summary, graphs, and a heat map highlighting inconsistencies across the field. International Impact The fLEX Device’s credibility has grown with every sporting venue the team has tested over the last five years—130-plus stadiums connected to the NFL, MLB, and other professional and college leagues in five countries. FIFA, soccer’s international governing body, has seen the value of the fLEX Device firsthand during a five-year research collaboration with UT. Billions of FIFA World Cup 26 viewers will soon watch top athletes play on natural grass pitches developed by Sorochan’s research team. Several of the host stadiums for the FIFA Club World Cup 2025 used a first-of-its-kind “shallow profile” pitch. “It was a ‘wow’ moment when fLEX first demonstrated that the shallow construction method we were experimenting with performed the same as a standard pitch, which has 12 inches of sand underneath,” Sorochan says. “This shallow profile could enable host stadiums that typically use synthetic turf to quickly and cost effectively install safe natural grass pitches for the World Cup tournaments.” At FIFA’s request, Sorochan’s team used the fLEX Device to gather field data before and after each Club World Cup game in summer 2025. They’ll likely use fLEX in the same way during FIFA World Cup 26: to inform real-time field management decisions that protect players and ensure uniform conditions across all 16 host stadiums. “FIFA has incredibly high standards for these pitches,” Sorochan says. “fLEX is the right tool to make sure their expectations for consistency, safety, and performance are met.” In May 2025, global pitch management solutions company SGL purchased the fLEX Device product rights. “SGL is an industry leader expanding its portfolio of resources and tools for improving sports fields,” Sorochan says. “They invest in quality and R&D. fLEX was a great fit.” “fLEX represents the very best of UT—ideas that are generated and implemented locally and go on to change the world,” says Deb Crawford, vice chancellor for research, innovation, and economic development. “By leveraging the Chancellor’s Innovation Fund and partnering with private industry, Dr. Sorochan and his colleagues have expanded their impact, ensuring that UT innovations continue to have a profound impact worldwide.” Dickson is directing product development for SGL fLEX Systems. “I’ll explore questions to make it even more user friendly, like Could it be robotic? Could we put an electric motor drive on it? Are we getting the right data for different sports?” “This device will make all sports surfaces safer for all levels, from young kids to professional players,” Sorochan sums up. “UT’s support made this impact possible. Now, SGL is making it global.” Delve into UT’s research to create the best and most consistent pitches for FIFA World Cup 26. 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. The post Testing Ground appeared first on The Turf Zone.

    8 min

  3. Jun 17

    UT and FIFA World Cup 26!

    Welcome to The Turf Zone podcast. This episode covers how The University of Tennessee’s research as part of the FIFA 2026 World Cup is already scoring benefits on the world stage. When FIFA selected the University of Tennessee to oversee research for building and maintaining the FIFA WORLD CUP 26 pitches, it promised to focus worldwide attention on the university’s turfgrass science and management program. With the opening games just weeks away, UT’s collaboration with the Fédération Internationale de Football Association has already brought new recognition to the acclaimed turfgrass program. The research—led by John Sorochan, who is the Distinguished Professor of Turfgrass Science and Management in the UT Department of Plant Sciences—is also yielding information that will result in improved parks, recreation fields and sports turfs at schools and universities. “It’s been an incredibly important initiative,” says Keith Carver, UT Institute of Agriculture senior vice chancellor and senior vice president. “It takes the work of our faculty and researchers to audiences all over the world. But, in an equally important manner, our work with FIFA has ushered in new advances to turfgrass that have improved golf courses, yards and gardens all over the Volunteer State. The impact of this research reaches far and wide.” In 2021, FIFA initiated a five-year project with UT and Michigan State University for help in producing optimum playing surfaces for the 16 stadiums and nearly 150 practice fields for FIFA WORLD CUP 26. Forty-eight national teams will play at venues in Canada, Mexico and the U.S., spanning four time zones and multiple climatic regions. Since then, UT researchers have been growing test plots of grass, experimenting with ways of installing grass over different surfaces in varying conditions and testing surfaces for the best playing and safety conditions. FIFA funded the construction of climate-controlled test fields at the Plant Sciences Unit of the UT East Tennessee AgResearch and Education Center in Knoxville. Alan Ferguson, FIFA senior pitch management manager, says the university’s research was used in the inaugural Club World Cup, an international competition organized by FIFA, held last summer at a dozen stadiums across the U.S. “The UT turf team is well known around the world for high-quality research,” Ferguson says. “With so many key technologies already under research at UT, it made sense for FIFA to partner and extend this research.” The UT turfgrass science and management program is expanding in other ways, as well. UT is establishing certificate programs for pitch managers, golf course superintendents and those who oversee other sports venues. The UT Herbert College of Agriculture is working to launch one or more certificate programs for turfgrass science, including specializations for sports turf. The program is intended to have a state, national and global audience and will be open to current college students. UT Extension currently offers the non-credit, online Certified Lawn Care Professional Program on general turfgrass management. The program is tailored for working professionals who want to deepen their knowledge of regional turfgrass management and who do not need or intend to use the training for a college certificate or degree program. Participants in this program do not have to submit homework or take quizzes and exams, or develop other types of work typically associated with college programs. Participants who finish the program receive a certificate of completion from UT Extension, though no college credit or transcripts are earned. UT also is investing in additional turf research fields, which Sorochan says could be used to test specific technologies like heating systems, vacuum ventilation and subsurface irrigation. Learn more about these efforts, the benefits they are bringing to athletic playing surfaces throughout Tennessee, and the first-class opportunities they are bringing to turfgrass science and management students in an article in UTIA’s Land, Life and Science magazine. 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. The post UT and FIFA World Cup 26! appeared first on The Turf Zone.

    5 min

  4. Jun 16

    Welcome, Dr. Zia Williamson to Mississippi State University

    Welcome to The Turf Zone podcast. This episode features the article “Welcome, Dr. Zia Williamson to Mississippi State University” from Mississippi Turfgrass magazine. Mississippi State University is pleased to welcome Dr. Zia Williamson as Assistant Professor of Extension for Turf and Ornamental Entomology in the Department of Agricultural Sciences and Plant Protection. A native of Lincolnton, Georgia, Dr. Williamson grew up surrounded by the green industry through her family’s landscaping business near Augusta. That early exposure to plants, insects, and managed landscapes helped shape her academic path. She earned undergraduate degrees in entomology and horticulture from the University of Georgia, where she also gained research experience in plant production, fruit pathology, nematology, museum collections, and applied entomology. She later completed both her master’s degree and Ph.D. in entomology at UGA. Dr. Williamson’s graduate research has focused on insect ecology and management in specialty crops, turfgrass, ornamentals, and urban landscapes. Her master’s work examined trunk-boring beetle pests in Georgia specialty crops and urban landscapes. Her doctoral research explored native bee ecology in turfgrass production farms and ornamental horticulture settings, including how landscape characteristics, floral resources, and management practices influence pollinator presence and activity. At Mississippi State, Dr. Williamson will develop Extension and applied research programs addressing insect and pest management needs in turfgrass, ornamentals, and related landscape systems. Her work will support growers, golf course superintendents, landscape professionals, Extension agents, and other practitioners, as well as homeowners, through insect identification, science-based management recommendations, trainings, and responsive educational resources. As she begins her new role, Dr. Williamson is eager to connect with Mississippi stakeholders and learn more about the turf and ornamental pest challenges they face. Please drop her an email (zvw9@msstate.edu), and come see her speak at this year’s September 17 Field Day. 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. The post Welcome, Dr. Zia Williamson to Mississippi State University appeared first on The Turf Zone.

    3 min

  5. Jun 15

    How Variability Within and Between Natural Turfgrass and Synthetic Athletic Fields Impacts Athlete Safety and Performance

    Welcome to The Turf Zone Podcast. This episode features the article “How Variability Within and Between Natural Turfgrass and Synthetic Athletic Fields Impacts Athlete Safety and Performance” written by Ava Veith, Dr. David McCall, Dr. Chase Straw, Dr. Daniel Sandor, Dr. Jay Williams, Elisabeth Kitchen, Kevin Hensler, Aaron Tucker and Dr. Caleb Henderson Authors Note and Context Ava Veith is a Ph.D. student in the Department of Plant Science at Penn State University under the advisement of Dr. Chase Straw, where her research focuses on studying within-field variability and athlete–surface interactions. However, the research presented in this article was conducted during her master’s program at Virginia Tech under Dr. David McCall. This study served as a foundational investigation into how variability within and between natural turfgrass and synthetic turf athletic fields influences athletes. The findings from this work have shaped the direction of subsequent doctoral research. Building on this foundation, the planned Ph.D. project aims to examine athlete lower-limb joint biomechanics across natural turfgrass, synthetic turf, and hybrid (natural turfgrass reinforced with synthetic fibers) surfaces using multi-segment inertial measurement units. At the conclusion of this article, the next phase of research will be briefly outlined to demonstrate how it has grown from the master’s study. In this way, the Virginia Tech study presented here represents both a completed project and the starting point for a broader, ongoing effort to better understand how the playing surface can affect athlete movement and injury-relevant mechanics. Introduction A safe playing surface is essential for athletic competition. Natural turfgrass and synthetic turf are common playing surfaces used for field sports, and extensive research has been conducted to compare these two surface types. However, limited attention has been given to within-field variability and its impact on athlete safety and performance. Studies often classify athletic fields broadly as synthetic or natural, overlooking critical surface metrics that fluctuate both within and between fields. Key field characteristics such as surface hardness, rotational resistance, soil moisture, thatch depth, and infill depth (for synthetic fields) play a crucial role in assessing field quality. Variability in these factors can be influenced by environmental conditions, management practices, and field usage patterns. Despite the known importance of these factors, current research often fails to account for field-specific inconsistencies, limiting the effectiveness of broad comparisons between surfaces. To improve field safety and optimize athlete performance, interdisciplinary collaboration among turfgrass scientists, sports scientists, and sports medicine professionals is necessary. Evidence-based field management strategies must be developed to ensure more consistent playing conditions, reducing the risk of injury. Wearable technologies such as STATSports GPS trackers (STATSports, 2025) and ankle inertial measurement units (IMUs) (IMeasureU, 2019) provide critical insights into athlete biomechanics, load monitoring, and more. These technologies allow researchers to quantify how different surface conditions influence athletes during performance, offering valuable data for injury prevention strategies. Beyond data collected by wearable technologies, athlete perceptions of field conditions also play a role in performance and injury risk. Unpredictable surface variability can affect player confidence, movement efficiency, and risk-taking behaviors, making perception-based data collection essential. Understanding how athletes experience and perceive different playing surfaces can inform future improvements in field construction and maintenance. The objective of this study is to quantify the impact of surface variability on athlete safety and performance, both within and between natural turfgrass and synthetic turf surfaces. This research will quantify how variations in key surface metrics, including surface hardness, rotational resistance, soil moisture, thatch depth, and infill depth, affect athletes utilizing data from wearable technologies, such as STATSports GPS trackers and ankle IMUs. Additionally, to further understand the influence of field surfaces, athletes will be surveyed before and after performing drills to gather insights into their perceptions of how surface variability impacts their performance. Methodology Athletic Fields Tested This research was conducted in August of 2024, where four athletic fields on the Virginia Tech campus in Blacksburg, Virginia were studied. Two of these fields were natural turfgrass (bermudagrass), while the other two fields were synthetic turf. For both field types, one field was classified as ‘low usage’, while the other was classified as ‘high usage’. This was determined based on traffic frequency, field age, and management practices. Preliminary Data Collection Before live athletes were introduced, surface hardness was assessed on all four fields using a Clegg hammer, with 100 measurements collected per field. The data were then analyzed using ArcGIS Pro to generate surface hardness heatmaps, highlighting variability between and within each field. These maps allowed us to identify specific locations for the athletes to perform drills, where one selected area within each field was slightly harder than the rest of the field, and the other being slightly softer. Additionally, 20 measurements of rotational resistance (using Deltec’s rotational resistance tester), thatch depth (using a soil profile sampler), soil moisture (using a TDR 350 Soil Moisture Meter), and infill depth (using a Turf-Tec Professional Model Infill Depth Gauge) were taken in both the softer and harder areas to further characterize each field and understand the relationship between surface conditions and athlete performance. Data Collection During Athlete Involvement Fourteen female athletes participated in the study, equipped with STATSports GPS devices (to measure running speed) and ankle IMUs (to measure lower limb impact intensity) to quantify their movements during drills. The athletes were each given new Nike cleats prior to participation to eliminate variation based on cleat configuration. They completed three drills, including a drop landing or drop jump drill, a T-drill, and a modified acceleration-deceleration drill, which were designed to replicate common athletic movements. Each drill was performed three times in both the softer and harder areas identified within each field. Additionally, each athlete completed pre- and post-performance surveys designed to capture their perceptions of field quality before and after completing the drills, providing insight into how different surfaces may have influenced their performance. Results and Discussion Surface Hardness Data Heatmaps highlight surface hardness variability within each studied field. Surface hardness data (n = 100 per field) were analyzed using analysis of variance, and means were separated using Fisher’s protected least significant difference (LSD) test at α = 0.05 to evaluate statistical differences between locations. Both synthetic turf fields had significantly harder surfaces than the natural turfgrass fields (p available in the Spring 2026 issue of Pennsylvania Turfgrass magazine). These measurements (n = 20 per both hard and soft areas within each field) were analyzed using analysis of variance, and means were separated using Fisher’s protected least significant difference (LSD) test at α = 0.05 to evaluate statistical differences between locations. Although the fields tested in this research were not professional-level fields, it is insightful to compare the results with the FIFA natural-pitch rating system (FIFA, 2022). All rotational resistance values fell within FIFA’s ‘excellent quality’ and ‘satisfactory quality’ thresholds, which is important because excessive rotational resistance has been linked to increased lower extremity injuries due to the foot becoming entrapped in the surface during pivoting movements, and too little resistance can increase the risk of slipping. However, soil moisture values exceed 35%, which FIFA classifies as ‘unacceptable quality’. This elevated moisture is likely the primary cause of the low surface hardness values observed on the natural turfgrass fields, which were lower than FIFA’s 70-85 Gmax ‘excellent quality’ range. Additionally, FIFA considers thatch depths over 25 mm as unacceptable, and 10–15 mm satisfactory. Excessive thatch can cause athlete’s cleats to become caught within the surface, increasing knee ligament stress. The low-usage natural turfgrass field had more thatch despite regular maintenance, while the high-usage natural turfgrass field had less, likely due to recent sprigging the summer before. Soft areas in both natural turfgrass fields exhibited higher thatch levels than the hard areas, consistent with previous findings that core cultivation reduces both thatch and surface hardness (McCarty et al., 2007; Atkinson et al., 2012). This supports the understanding that increased thatch can act as a cushioning layer, absorbing impact and thereby reducing surface hardness. The high-usage synthetic turf field exhibited significantly less infill and greater surface hardness compared to the low-usage synthetic turf field, and the soft areas within both synthetic fields had more infill than the hard areas. This aligns with previous research indicating that infill depth decreases with use, which in turn leads to higher surface hardness (Dickson et al., 2022). Additionally, the low-usage synthetic field exhibited greater variability in infill depth between the selected hard and soft areas, likely due to its relatively young age (only one year old at the time of the study). Comp

    25 min

  6. Jun 12

    Give Yourself the Edge in Managing Sedges in Lawns and Landscape Beds

    Welcome to The Turf Zone Podcast. This episode features the article “Give Yourself the Edge in Managing Sedges in Lawns and Landscape Beds” written by Jeffrey Derr and Adam Nichols. Sedges are major weed problems in turf and landscape ornamentals, as well as in crop production, including container- and field-grown nursery crops. Although there are annual sedges that occasionally are problems in these areas, the major problems are perennial species. Having an understanding of their taxonomy and life cycle will aid you when developing a control program. Sedges are monocots, which mean they have one seed leaf when they germinate. Grasses are also monocots, but they are in a different plant family, the Poaceae, as opposed to sedges, which are in the Cyperaceae or sedge family. So do not use the term “nutgrass” when referring to yellow nutsedge. Yellow nutsedge is not a grass and it is confusing to use a term that implies that it is a grass. You may ask “But what about broomsedge – isn’t that a grass?” Well, yes, but that is a topic for another article! The distinction between grasses and sedges is especially important when discussing chemical control. Most of our sedge herbicides do not affect grasses and most of our grass herbicides do not affect sedges. Here is some help in separating grasses from sedges. Grasses have round or flattened stems, generally have a ligule (either a membrane or fringe of hairs where the leaf blade meets the leaf sheath), and have two-ranked leaves (leaves appear from 2 sides of the stem). Sedges have triangular stems (sedges have edges), lack a ligule, and the leaves are three-ranked (come out from the three sides of the stem. When I taught the weed science class, I would slip in yellow nutsedge when we had the lab on grass identification to see what the students would do with it. They obviously struggled with it when trying to fit yellow nutsedge into a grass key. Major species: The most common sedge infesting turfgrass and ornamental beds is yellow nutsedge, a weed that occurs throughout Virginia. Yellow nutsedge is a perennial that spreads primarily through vegetative means. Rhizomes produce roughly ¼ to ½ inch long, tan to brown tubers in summer and fall. These tubers overwinter and then send up new shoots in the spring. Above-ground parts of the plant die with a killing frost. Although yellow nutsedge will produce seed, it does not appear to be an important factor in the spread of this species. Leaves are shiny and yellowish-green. Purple nutsedge, similar to yellow nutsedge, also is an herbaceous perennial that spreads by tubers and rhizomes. Leaves of purple nutsedge tend to be darker green than yellow nutsedge. The tubers are the same size as those for yellow nutsedge but are dark brown or purplish brown. Tubers of purple nutsedge have a bitter taste while those of yellow nutsedge have a sweet or almond-like flavor. Purple nutsedge has a purplish-brown seedhead, while yellow nutsedge has a, well, yellow seedhead. In a turf situation, however, you probably will not see the seedheads of either species, especially in frequently mowed sites, but seedheads would develop in ornamental beds if uncontrolled. Yellow nutsedge leaf blades have a long, sharp point while purple nutsedge has a blunt tip. However, this also may not be apparent in a mowed situation. Why is it important to tell yellow from purple nutsedge? Certain herbicides, such as bentazon, mesotrione, metolachlor, and sulfentrazone, are more effective on yellow than purple nutsedge, while other products work well on both species, such as halosulfuron. Purple nutsedge is predominantly a problem in southeastern Virginia. Purple nutsedge is found predominantly in the South while yellow nutsedge is found essentially throughout the contiguous 48 states. Another sedge group that has spread rapidly in Virginia is kyllinga. To me, kyllinga in bloom looks like a green ball about the size of a pea sitting on 3 green leaves. There are both annual and perennial kyllinga species but the ones of greatest concern are the perennials green and false green kyllinga. Kyllingas will also have a triangular stem but lack the tubers formed by yellow and purple nutsedge. The perennial kyllingas spread not only by rhizomes, but readily by seed, probably a factor in their spread, as they can flower below mowing height. We grow false green kyllinga by seed for our trials. Chemical control for kyllingas is very similar to that for yellow nutsedge. The primary annual sedge that I have seen in turf areas is compressed sedge. Rice flatsedge is an occasional annual weed in container production. We had fragrant flatsedge come in as a contaminant in plants I purchased from down south and it has been the most aggressive grower of the sedge species we have evaluated. These three sedge species spread strictly by seed and thus are easier to control than perennial sedges. Factors favoring growth of sedges Sedges grow best in warm temperatures, moist soil, and high sunlight. I usually do not see yellow nutsedge emergence until early April or later, depending on how quickly it warms up in the spring. Yellow nutsedge grows best in May through August, similar to that for bermudagrass. The sedges are not necessarily that much more competitive than turf species, but they can rapidly take advantage of any openings in the canopy. I always remember one of our former students who was working on halosulfuron when it was being developed. He had trouble getting yellow nutsedge to establish in his Kentucky bluegrass plots but where he killed out the bluegrass for his plot borders, he saw a nice straight line of yellow nutsedge in the killed strips! One problem with managing yellow and purple nutsedge is tuber dormancy. Not all tubers send up shoots at the same time. Some shoots will emerge in May, some in June, and some in July. Also, some tubers may not send up shoots until the following year or two. Most tubers are viable for only 2 to 3 years, but some can remain viable for 10 years or longer. So if one has an established stand of yellow or purple nutsedge they wish to eradicate, it will be a multi-year project. Even if you achieve 100% control in a season, you probably will see nutsedge emergence the following year. Cultural Control of sedges Maintaining a thick stand of turf will help restrict the development of sedges, especially in the spring when nutsedge shoots emerge from the underground tubers. Overseed and fertilize cool season grasses in the fall to have a thick, competitive stand when sedges resume growth in late spring. Avoid scalping turf as this opens up the canopy for invasion by sedges, crabgrass, and other weed species. Control insect and disease pests to prevent thinning of the turf. Avoid overwatering turf and ensure proper soil drainage to prevent excessively wet soil. Monitor new sod or ornamental plant installations to insure that nutsedge or kyllinga has not hitchhiked along with the sod or nursery plants. Avoid any stress that adversely affects turf growth. I always think of a turf situation I was asked to investigate. They had applied fluazifop in a backpack sprayer for bermudagrass control in tall fescue. Not only was the bermudagrass controlled, so was the tall fescue. It is hard to determine a spot-treatment rate of fluazifop that will be safe in tall fescue. They reseeded and ran the irrigation frequently in summer, which led to an excellent stand of compressed sedge. The cause of the sedge infestation was the initial turf damage caused by improper herbicide application. Yellow nutsedge is hard to control using hand weeding as plants can break at the soil line, leaving the underground tubers and rhizomes. Tilling can spread the tubers, increasing the area of infestation. Chemical control of yellow nutsedge Learn the active ingredients listed in Tables 1 and 2 (available in the May/June 2026 issue of Virginia Turfgrass Journal on www.theturfzone.com). Some of these herbicides are sold in combination with other herbicides but I have only listed single active ingredient products that we have tested. There are a number of combination products that contain a sedge herbicide but also other herbicides for either broadleaf or grass control. For example, Sublime contains mesotrione, triclopyr, and dicamba. If you know the active ingredients, you will have a good idea as to how that combination product will perform. 1). Preemergence control in turf I frequently am asked about the availability of preemergence herbicides for nutsedge control. Actually, I prefer postemergence applications for yellow nutsedge control since this weed usually occurs in patches and thus fits well into spot-treatment programs. The problem with a preemergence application is that one would have to treat the entire lawn since the chemical must be applied prior to sedge emergence, unless one mapped out the previous year exactly where nutsedge was growing in a turf stand. The other reason favoring postemergence control of nutsedge is that few preemergence chemicals are available for turf use. Some postemergence herbicides, such as halosulfuron (SedgeHammer, Prosedge), mesotrione (Tenacity), and sulfentrazone (Dismiss) do have a degree of preemergence control, but I consider that a bonus following postemergence application. In bermudagrass, zoysiagrass, and certain other warm-season grasses, there are registrations for Pennant Magnum, Tower, and FreeHand for residual control of yellow nutsedge. These herbicides are much more effective on yellow compared to purple nutsedge and have generally short residual control. Also, we have seen delayed greenup with this group. However, we do use these products in ornamental beds. 2). Preemergence control in ornamental beds We do focus on preemergence herbicides in ornamental beds due to general lack of selective postemergence herbicides for overtop use. Products to consider include metolachlor (

    17 min

  7. Jun 10

    Member Spotlight on Devin McCaffrey

    Welcome to The Turf Zone podcast. This episode spotlights Turfgrass Council of North Carolina member Devin McCaffrey. Devin McCaffrey brings a straightforward philosophy to his work as Southeast Territory Manager for Performance Nutrition: help the land perform better while leaving it better than you found it. He works to deliver liquid and dry fertilizers, biostimulants, and a portfolio of plant health solutions spanning agriculture, turf, and ornamental markets. One of the biggest challenges in his work is differentiation. “Showing people what sets us apart from other fertility companies” is something Devin thinks about daily. His answer to that challenge is relationship-driven and focuses on getting in the room with the right people. “Being part of TCNC, and like organizations, aids in meeting like-minded professionals and navigating the industry,” he says. Devin also wants the public to understand something about the people who work in turfgrass. “We do our best to not be careless with what we put into the environment. Most people in the industry are avid hunters, fishers, golfers, nature people, and we want what we enjoy to be loved by generations to come.” That ethos aligns with one of the most encouraging shifts he’s seen in the industry over his career, “Less inputs to grass and a welcome response to natural and organic products, now that people understand them and see them work.” His reason for joining TCNC reflects the same values — being part of an organization that works to teach turf professionals and the community about sustainable turfgrass management. Away from work, Devin carries the discipline of a lifelong competitive swimmer. He swam at LSU. He also loves spending time with his beautiful family. 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 Member Spotlight on Devin McCaffrey appeared first on The Turf Zone.

    2 min

  8. Jun 8

    A Message for VTC Members from the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality

    Welcome to The Turf Zone podcast. This episode features a message for VTC members from the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality. Written by Kati McCall, Water Supply Planner, Office of Water Supply, Virginia Department of Environmental Quality We are reaching out on behalf of DEQ’s Water Supply Planning and Analysis team regarding the Virginia Water Withdrawal Reporting Regulation (9VAC25-200).1 This regulation requires users withdrawing groundwater or surface water in Virginia to report annual water withdrawals if withdrawals exceed 1 million gallons per month for crop irrigation purposes or 10,000 gallons per day for all other purposes (300,000 gallons per month). Users that fall below these thresholds or are otherwise exempted from the regulation are encouraged to report voluntarily. Water reporting data provided through the annual reporting process allows DEQ to better understand how water use throughout the Commonwealth impacts surface water and groundwater resources, evaluate whether current water sources can meet future needs, and protect beneficial uses. Water reporting data for 2026 is due to DEQ no later than January 31, 2027. In preparation for the 2026 reporting cycle, our team is conducting an initiative to increase registration of agricultural facilities across the Commonwealth through the distribution of targeted outreach materials. Water reporting data is considered in the development of regional water supply plans2 (required by 9VAC25-7803) and in the water withdrawal permitting process, which includes a simulation of total reported water use within the watershed. Increased availability of water reporting data from agricultural facilities may facilitate more accurate long-term planning of water resources by informing regional water demand projections for agriculture. Additionally, agricultural producers may benefit from reporting annual water withdrawals; a few potential benefits are: Increasing efficiency: comparing current withdrawals to reported withdrawals can provide insight into potential issues at the facility by identifying periods of unusual use (e.g., line breaks, leaks, and other water loss) Drought awareness: users who report withdrawals are notified when the Virginia Drought Monitoring Task Force4 establishes or expands drought advisories affecting their region, and as new drought-related tools developed by DEQ become available Documenting use: reporting annual water withdrawals is the best way to document use for the facility (e.g., when applying for a permit) Planning for the future: calculating and reporting annual water withdrawals may help users to predict and plan for future water needs (e.g., when expanding operations) We are hoping to partner with the Virginia Turfgrass Council, given your extensive network of agricultural producers, to increase awareness of the annual reporting process and potential benefits. Would you be willing to assist us with this initiative by sharing these targeted outreach materials with your network (e.g., through inclusion in an upcoming newsletter)? Outreach materials are available on DEQ’s Agricultural Water Use Resource Center webpage5, including the Annual Water Withdrawal Reporting Agricultural Brochure6, the Water Estimation Tool for Agricultural Withdrawals7, and the Water Withdrawal Dashboard8. Folks may contact the water supply planner serving their region9 with any questions regarding the annual reporting process or associated outreach materials. Please let us know if you have any questions by calling (804) 350-4079. 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 A Message for VTC Members from the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality appeared first on The Turf Zone.

    4 min

  9. Jun 5

    Advancing Precision Weed Management in Turfgrass Systems with Machine Vision-Guided Targeted Spraying

    Welcome to The Turf Zone podcast. This episode features the article “Advancing Precision Weed Management in Turfgrass Systems with Machine Vision-Guided Targeted Spraying” Written by Brooke Heikkila – Graduate Research Assistant Navdeep Godara – Assistant Professor of Turfgrass & Forage Weed Science, Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, North Carolina State University and Pawel Petelewicz – Assistant Professor of Turfgrass Weed Science, University of Florida, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, Agronomy Department Turfgrass managers are facing increasing weed challenges due to evolving regulatory framework and growing incidence of herbicide-resistant weeds. The release of the first turfgrass-specific commercial machine vision-guided sprayer (ALBA, Ecorobotix Inc.) enables automated and localized herbicide applications in turf. Although often referred to as “spot spraying” in marketing materials, “targeted spraying” is a more accurate description as it distinguishes this system from manual spot treatments and other existing precision weed management approaches. Such targeted application systems have already been successfully deployed in other crops using platforms such as the John Deere See and Spray, Agritech America WEED-IT, Verdant Robotics Sharp Shooter, Ecorobotix ARA. Using See and Spray technology, comparable weed control was observed between the broadcast and targeted spraying methods, but the targeted spraying reduced the treated acreage by up to two-thirds. In turfgrass, this technology not only offers significant herbicide savings but also opens the door for practitioners to combat herbicide-resistant weeds by incorporating alternative chemistries, including nonselective herbicides or herbicide tank mixtures combining multiple modes-of-action which are not typically feasible in broadcast applications. Overall, spot spraying is not a new concept, as many turfgrass managers already employ it to control weed escapes following broadcast herbicide applications or where selective chemistries are not an option. Manual spot spraying involves individuals walking the golf course or other turfgrass areas with a sprayer loaded with herbicide to make localized applications directly to weeds. Traditional spot spraying is labor-intensive, time-consuming, and requires applicators to accurately identify weeds, necessitating additional training and expertise. It ultimately increases application costs and is also prone to human error, often resulting in overapplication and missed weeds. However, targeted spraying systems such as ALBA, utilize artificial intelligence combined with machine vision to detect problematic weeds within turfgrass canopy in real-time to apply herbicides only to those small areas where individual weeds are present. ALBA is a tractor pull-behind unit that can operate at speeds up to 4.5 miles per hour and uses an enclosure to block ambient light and to create consistent lighting conditions to continuously scan the turfgrass canopy with its cameras to detect weeds. When a weed is spotted, an individual nozzle – one out of 108 – activates to directly target the weed with a 1.2 × 1.2-inch spray resolution per nozzle. As targeted application systems continue to advance and competing platforms emerge, it is critical to understand how to effectively integrate and leverage these sprayers within turfgrass weed management programs. Several preliminary field experiments using ALBA and its ARA-based predecessor research platform were conducted by the NC State Turfgrass Weed Science Program and the UF/IFAS Turfgrass Weed Science Program to understand the applications of this technology. Preliminary studies showed that machine-vision guided targeted spraying substantially reduces herbicide usage and treated acreage while maintaining weed control efficacy, offering both economic and environmental benefits while targeting wide variety of problematic weeds with high accuracy. Reduction in Herbicide Volume Used – In a study focused on controlling false-green kyllinga in bermudagrass fairways, machine vision-guided targeted spraying with ALBA reduced herbicide spray volume by 77% compared to broadcast treatments. False green kyllinga cover was 17% at the experimental sites during study initiation, triggering significant savings due to the weed-specific, localized targeted treatments compared to broadcast herbicide applications. Broadcast applications of standard kyllinga control products typically cost around $190 to $240 per acre, but targeted treatment can lower the cost by more than $145 per acre even when dealing with moderate level of weed infestation (~15% weed cover). Similarly, in another ongoing study, when annual bluegrass weed cover was 10% in bermudagrass fairways, targeted applications achieved a 66% reduction in herbicide spray volume compared to conventional broadcast treatments. Sulfonylurea herbicides for postemergence control of annual bluegrass cost around $140 to $185 per acre and targeted spraying can reduce the cost by at least $92 per acre when weed cover is 10% or less. Practitioners can expect greater savings at turfgrass sites with lower weed infestations, which are typical of intensively managed surfaces and when applying expensive herbicides such as PoaCure or organic herbicides during winter dormancy of warm-season turfgrasses. Targeted application system was also evaluated for control of broadleaf weeds, dallisgrass, smooth crabgrass, and tropical signalgrass in studies conducted independently or in collaboration between Mississippi State University, NCSU, Virginia Tech and UF IFAS, and observed a 53% to 95% reduction in spray volume. In all the aforementioned cases, weed control levels achieved with targeted spraying were no different from broadcast applications. Thus, these studies demonstrate that, across various problematic weed species, this novel application system can substantially reduce the herbicide volume required, lowering costs without compromising weed control efficacy. Lower Treated Acreage – During broadcast herbicide applications, substantial areas without weeds are often treated unnecessarily. Targeted applications can reduce the treated acreage, enabling practitioners to use herbicides such as MSMA, which are currently restricted to spot treatments on less than 25% of the total golf course acreage per year. Targeted spraying systems are particularly useful for herbicides with limited or no residual activity, as it allows localized treatments to weed instead of broadcast applications to turfgrass. Targeted spraying for false-green kyllinga control (17% weed cover) in bermudagrass fairways resulted in 85% reduction in treated acreage compared to broadcast spraying. In a similar study, an 80% reduction in treated acreage was found when only treating annual bluegrass in dormant bermudagrass at 10% weed cover. A study conducted by UF/IFAS Turfgrass Weed Science Program using circular, non-overlapping targets of varying patch sizes (4-10 cm diameter) to simulate random different weed densities and dispersions within the 1-20%, 21-40%, and 41-60% coverage, indicated total spray deposition of approximately 40%, 64%, and 74%, respectively. This corresponded to estimated herbicide savings of 60%, 36%, and 26%. Spray deposition increased with rising weed pressure, while the non-sprayed area, directly reflecting herbicide savings declined accordingly. These results confirm that variation in herbicide savings with targeted applications is driven primarily by weed density, with dispersion playing a secondary role, exerting stronger effects at low weed densities but negligible influence at higher densities. The reduction in treated acreage can potentially diminish the environmental impact of herbicides by minimizing overall pesticide load released into the environment, limiting off-target movement, reducing the risk of groundwater contamination, and lowering the risk of human exposure associated with pesticide applications. Targeted approaches permit treatment to a limited portion of turf, enabling the effective use of chemistries with area-use limitations. Effective reduction in area treated with targeted spraying will become increasingly important as new regulations come into effect, particularly in the context of upcoming Endangered Species Act-imposed changes. Therefore, research projects funded by the Turfgrass Council of North Carolina will focus on investigating the agronomic and environmental benefits of targeted application systems for managing problematic weed species. Alternative Herbicide Options for Resistance Management – Targeted spraying also enables selectivity at the sprayer level rather than relying only on selectivity of the herbicide used. This potentially allows turf managers to use nonselective herbicides that were previously not an option for broadcast treatment due to severe injury to actively growing turfgrasses. Broad spectrum herbicides like glyphosate, glufosinate, or flumioxazin are highly effective against a wide variety of weeds, but practitioners often wait for turfgrass to go dormant before spraying nonselective herbicides, while in some geographies, such as Florida, achieving full dormancy is not even possible. However, with this new technology, practitioners will have the option to incorporate nonselective herbicides year-round with minimal collateral damage to turfgrass. Glyphosate (Roundup Pro Concentrate) applied via broadcast application at 12 fluid ounces per acre rate reduced bermudagrass green cover significantly, but targeted spraying had similar level of green cover as nontreated plots as documented in our recent study. Likewise, glufosinate applied at 41 fluid ounces per acre (as Finale XL T&O) reduced bermudagrass cover drastically after broadcast application but had minimal effect on turfgrass after targeted spraying. Targeted spraying technology also allows use of novel a

    15 min

  10. Jun 3

    A Golden Milestone, The 50th Annual MTC Conference at Turf Valley Resort

    Welcome to The Turf Zone Podcast. This episode features the article “A Golden Milestone, The 50th Annual MTC Conference at Turf Valley Resort” After five decades of advancing the turfgrass profession in Maryland, the 50th Annual Maryland Turfgrass Council (MTC) Conference convened on December 16, 2025, at the scenic Turf Valley Resort. The event marked a major milestone for our Council in celebrating half a century of education, innovation, and collaboration across all sectors of the turf industry. A Full Day of Learning and Networking Attendees were welcomed with a breakfast beside the Trade Show, where sponsors showcased the latest tools, products, and services serving the turfgrass community. After a warm welcome and the annual meeting, the program shifted into a series of breakout education sessions tailored to lawn and landscape, sports turf, and golf course professionals. Members, industry professionals, sponsors, and exhibitors gathered to share insights, tackle challenges, and explore emerging technologies shaping turf management today. A special thanks to the conference sponsors; Harrells, Corteva, Landscape Supply, Nutrien Ag Solutions, Quantico Creek Sod Farms, Pocono Turf, SiteOne, and Green Industries. Education Opportunities The 2025 conference featured a dynamic lineup of speakers and panel discussions addressing cutting-edge topics: A technology panel sparking conversation on how robotics and AI are impacting turfgrass operations, reflecting innovations rapidly entering the industry. Sessions exploring new and persistent turf diseases, advancements in application technologies, and precision turfgrass management. Expert insights on managing pest pressures, optimizing root zone environments, and improving efficiency in integrated pest management approaches. Each session delivered practical takeaways and research-based strategies that turf managers can apply through the coming season. The Turfgrass Community Central to the MTC mission is strengthening connections across our profession, and this year was no exception. Whether catching up with colleagues between sessions, discussing solutions with exhibitors on the Trade Show floor, or sharing a meal during a lively lunch break, the conference fostered engagement at every turn. Looking Ahead This 50th Conference celebration was a testament to the enduring spirit of Maryland’s turfgrass professionals whose work shapes landscapes, recreational spaces, and playing fields across the state. As we reflect on this milestone year, we also look forward to building on this legacy at future gatherings and continuing to raise the standard of excellence in our industry. Please mark your calendars for the 2026 Maryland Turfgrass Conference on December 15th, 2026. We look forward to seeing everyone there for the 51st year. 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 A Golden Milestone, The 50th Annual MTC Conference at Turf Valley Resort appeared first on The Turf Zone.

    3 min
  • 10 Episodes

Ratings & Reviews

4.3
out of 5
3 Ratings

About

All Your Turf News In One Place

Information

You Might Also Like