Shop Products
Houzz Logo Print
danielj_2009

Got My Soil Results - What's Next?

danielj_2009
9 years ago

Yeah! That Logan Labs is really fast!

I was hoping to read a book that covers everything about proper lawn care, but apparently you guys haven't written it yet. So I now understand the basics of how to do it right, but there is much I still don't understand. I have another thread called Sod: How Green is Green, but it has gotten very long, and so I wanted to use this thread as a guide for me to keep my lawn going in the right direction.

Recap:
Property has been around for 60+ years, but in fall of 2013, well after house rebuild was complete, we finally started landscaping. This required a regrading of the property with heavy equipment, upsetting anything that was there before, which was mostly weeds and poorly kept grass. The landscaper incorporated topsoil into the existing turf, which was killed off and tilled under. The front yard was KBG sodded and the back was seeded with a standard mix for northern NJ.

Front Yard:
{{gwi:107570}}

Back Yard:
{{gwi:107571}}

My New Weed Control Technician, Maurice:
{{gwi:107572}}

Logan Labs Results:
{{gwi:107573}}

It is not surprising to me that the back yard results are not as good in some areas as the front yard. There are two probable reasons: 1) the back yard had more aggressive excavation of dirt for the new basement and also during removal of a massive tree, and 2) some of the rich soil from the sod farm was included in the front yard sample.

I have been generating a lot of questions, but instead of shotgunning a bunch of question, maybe morpeus, dchall or anyone else interested could interpret my lab results and give me a point in the right direction.

Thanks so much!

Comments (202)

  • timtsb
    8 years ago

    If you want to see what they look like just blow your nose after you mow next time

  • morpheuspa (6B/7A, E. PA)
    8 years ago

    Ha! Yes, that would also work. :-) The number of annoying but harmless species of insect in the lawn and gardens is absolutely enormous, so really, it could be any number of things.

  • Wes
    8 years ago

    We have a similar but that pops up from time to time. Mine seem to swarm about 4-6 feet off the ground and they are more prevalent at dusk. In addition to the normal ear, nose, and mouth invasions, I had one go in my eye once while running on a trail. The pain was almost knee buckling, although short lived. As soon as I was able to rub it out, the pain stopped.

    I've noticed that while mowing through them, they will typically follow me for about 10 feet and then return to the general area they were previously hovering about. I would think that mowing in the morning might be a solution. Though they seem to be just as active around 9:30 to 10:30 am here as well.

  • danielj_2009
    Original Author
    8 years ago

    I'm going to give it a try next Sunday early in the am and see what happens. I mean what happens with the bugs, not with my pissed off neighbors!


  • danielj_2009
    Original Author
    8 years ago

    Morpheus - your last prescription from last year was to apply 18 lb of potassium sulfate (2 lb/Ksf) in mid June. I have 10 lb left in the 50 lb bag. I had to order it online, and the shipping was almost as much as the product. I paid $78, which I don't mind if I need additional applications. Am I right to assume that your prescription probably won't bring levels all the way up to where I need them and that I'll be using more in the coming year? If so, I need to place an order to see if I can get it by Saturday.


  • morpheuspa (6B/7A, E. PA)
    8 years ago

    Sorry, missed this. Next time, whack me in the head and tell me to answer you.

    If you used the ten pounds (1.7 pounds per thousand) now, that's fine, and we'll re-test this summer and determine if you need more.

    If you ordered it, well, you're probably going to need more. :-)


  • danielj_2009
    Original Author
    8 years ago

    lol. Yeah after a couple of days I reflected on my post and concluded that it was stupid. I ordered another bag. :)

  • danielj_2009
    Original Author
    8 years ago

    Morpheus - I noticed that you often say that you are going to raise iron levels "very slowly" with milorganite. Is there a reason it should be done slowly, or are you just saying that it will take time because there isn't that much iron in milorganite?


  • morpheuspa (6B/7A, E. PA)
    8 years ago

    Mostly just because it'll take that much time due to the amount of iron required.

    This is where it gets complicated. Technically, application of ferrous sulfate heptahydrate is limited to 400 pounds per acre per year (give or take some). That works out to somewhat less than 10 pounds per thousand per year, but ten pounds is really close enough (it's not that touchy). Which should itself be broken into three separate applications spaced evenly through the growing season.

    The fact that I often recommend ferrous sulfate monohydrate complicates the whole mess. It's about half again as strong as the heptahydrate. Milorganite is a combination of iron sulfate (almost certainly heptahydrate given the material) and iron chloride (I dislike chlorides, but the amount is quite small). Binding to the organic material also occurs.

    But I digress a bit. Given the limit of 3 pounds per thousand per app, Milo at 20 per K is applying 0.8 pounds. Technically, it's on the low side to begin with (although 0.8 pounds per thousand would be an absolutely enormous and probably fatal amount for any other minor element, iron is heavily soil bound and not that toxic to begin with--some rare soils are naturally 50,000 PPM iron and plants do very well).

    Milo has the advantage of being an organic feeding as well as having a good percentage of iron, so that's why I tend to recommend it. It's easy to find, easy to apply, and mistakes don't matter very much.

    Iron sulfate is more expensive, harder to find, and mistakes can be a bit of a problem, at least temporarily. Pure iron sulfate is 12% as acidifying as pure sulfur--and it's a chemical reaction, unlike elemental sulfur, where the reaction is biological. You can really bollix calcium levels with this stuff.

    Pure Milo would be 0.5% as acidifying as pure sulfur...if it didn't also include a hefty dose of calcium, enough to offset the acidification.

    Results in the soil are also decidedly non-linear. If we're raising calcium levels, the pH will follow by rising somewhat. That forces more iron to bind in the soil, and the binding is harder to reverse (iron-loving bacteria function best in very acidic environments, and are almost useless as you get near-neutral).

    So if the pH is going up, iron has to rise significantly to simply keep up. Roughly, iron availability doubles for every 0.3 points more acidic you go (although there's a floor at about pH 4.5 and a ceiling at pH 7.0).

    To counter that, organics fit the bill. Iron binds very well to organic molecules, and the binding is weak enough that the plant can break it--plus the iron will release as the organics continue to break down, sending a trickle of iron into the soil at all times. The plants get a shot at that before it turns to rust or other hard to access iron chemistry.

    That's the basics. As to what the iron target is...it depends. If we assume a decently organic soil (say 4% or better), a pH of 6.4, and an off the shelf lawn, iron levels around 150 would produce good color. 200 will produce the best color. Please note that a lot of soils hit their proper balance at well over pH 6.4.

    For my lawn, 14% organic, pH 6.2, elite Kentucky bluegrass, iron levels of 300 produce excellent color but I could probably improve it even further by heading toward 400. In the gardens, current pH around 6.5, lower levels of iron are required as most plants aren't nearly that demanding--but even so, I keep iron levels near 300 for best leaf color and for best hues in the blue and purple colored flowers.

  • danielj_2009
    Original Author
    8 years ago

    Wow. Again, very interesting. So is color mainly determined by the iron content? Does nitrogen have anything to do with color or his nitrogen just about leaf growth? I also forgot to ask whether it is too late to apply Oceangrow. I want to keep getting the iron level up but don't want to force feed when, like you say, the lawn might be wanting to take a break.

  • morpheuspa (6B/7A, E. PA)
    8 years ago

    Given our current weather, you're still fine for OceanGro. Damp and pleasant weather looks like it'll hold through July 4th at least, so the feeding window is still open and will stay open for a while yet.


    Besides, OceanGro is never a mistake--the July lay-off is more to avoid wasting nitrogen (and releasing it into the water table and atmosphere) than it is about damaging the lawn.


    Color's determined by a lot of things. Nitrogen gets used (a lot), so the best spray I've concocted contains both iron and nitrogen. Magnesium is the central molecule of chlorophyll, so no Mg, no chlorophyll, no color. Water and free air flow are also critical, as is sunlight.


    Before anybody goes pouring on the magnesium for chlorophyll production, stop. Normal levels of Mg are more than sufficient for optimal color in any plant, while over-application has severe negative consequences.


    Here's the Wiki article on chorophyll's chemical structure: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlorophyll#Chemical_structure


    Notice anything? Iron doesn't appear in the molecule. At all. Anywhere. Yet clearly, adding iron greens the lawn. In this case, iron is a helper molecule used in the construction of the chlorophyll molecule, but doesn't find a home in the final molecule itself.


    Structurally, it requires carbon (from carbon dioxide), oxygen and hydrogen (from water) and nitrogen (from the soil). If all those are adequate, iron will be the limiting element. But that's why poorly-fed lawns tend to be chartreuse, yellowish, or that sickly pale green. The grass can produce other pigments without nitrogen (and iron), but can't produce chlorophyll, so the other colors dominate.


    Good photosynthesis is also important for chlorophyll production as cracking CO2 and H2O requires energy. So grasses in deep shade tend to feature poorer colors.


    Similarly, any element used in the photosynthetic process (which nowadays has evolved to be incredibly complicated) that's short or missing impacts the color of the lawn. There's close to a hundred steps in modern photosynthesis, which is another reason that proper soil balancing is critical.


    Although I don't often mention it, boron is used in the process, so low boron levels negatively impact photosynthetic efficacy (the system can side-step a lot of missing elements at the cost of efficiency), and indirectly, color. I tend to stress boron's impact on meristem development a lot more. Maybe I shouldn't...

  • morpheuspa (6B/7A, E. PA)
    8 years ago

    http://members.spinn.net/~roger/nutrients_a+i.pdf

    Here's another point that's more sensible to raise separately.

    I don't often discuss element antagonism (and interaction) because the situation is very complex (this is a simplified diagram) and I handle it automatically when reading a soil test. Plus in many cases the antagonism is minor enough that I don't have to worry too much.

    Excessive zinc, copper, and manganese can (as noted) negatively impact iron uptake via competition at the root's ion pumps. They also note that liming negatively impacts iron uptake, which is a direct chemical reaction that locks up iron in an inaccessible form.

    Not mentioned is that phosphorus is antagonistic to iron as well. High levels of P require high levels of Fe to counterbalance it. My garden soil is incredibly high in P, so the Fe levels are higher than you might think they should be to counteract the negative effects.

    So as we raise phosphorus levels (which is quite common in many soil test recommendations), iron levels also have to rise simply to compensate. If I'm also adding calcium, iron has to rise even further.

    Fortunately, additions of zinc, copper, and manganese are relatively uncommon and relatively minor. The iron shift is similarly minor and can be ignored in most cases.

  • danielj_2009
    Original Author
    8 years ago

    So is the "antagonism" really about competition for cation exchange sites, or is it competition that occurs in the soil solution where the root is trying to uptake the ions? I know, it's probably both and neither, and more complicated than that!! :o)

  • morpheuspa (6B/7A, E. PA)
    8 years ago

    Both, and more complicated. :-)

    If you look at tests where calcium levels are incredibly high, the CEC points are dominated by it. It drives out pretty much every other positive ion except for phosphorus. In the case of phosphorus, the excess calcium shifts the pH enough to bind the stuff incredibly tightly, rending it difficult for the grass to uptake.

    Since what's in the CEC is going to be what's in the soil solution, the two are fairly strongly related.

    I'm not big on soil pH, preferring to work directly with the soil ions that influence it. However, measured pH does impact on what nutrients are available and what nutrients aren't: http://www.avocadosource.com/tools/fertcalc_files/ph.htm

    That's not a great graph, but it's the standard one you'll see most often. Our soils almost always fall into the Medium Acid to Slightly Alkaline range, and the availability bars are oversimplified, but it gives you an idea. Iron's curve is flat out wrong as it should be wide open at below pH 5.0 and shrink after that, to practically zero at pH 7.0 and above.

    In this case, it doesn't much matter where the pH is coming from. I could design a terrible soil that's short on Ca, Mg, and K, but has excess Na that pushes the pH to near 7. Nutrient availability would still follow the curves, relative to what's in the soil to begin with. Whether the plants could survive the high sodium levels is another story, but sodium tolerant plants certainly could.

    And sometimes the graph simply doesn't matter. Most evergreens prefer acid conditions (but can be adjusted fairly easily to neutral-ish ones, as 15 Green Giant Thuja attest to in my back yard). Blueberries demand low pH in the 4.5 range, surviving beautifully in conditions that would starve some other plants--and they won't tolerate near-neutral conditions.

    As always, conditions also matter less when high levels of organic matter come into play. The EC is high, so far more nutrients can be bound, which means that even low availability at a given pH (or due to antagonism or direct chemical binding) matters less since there's more kicking around.

    Plus plants have an amazing ability to adjust to conditions since it's not like they're delicate little flowers. Even delicate little flowers aren't delicate little flowers in that department. While some are restricted to one very specific environment with very specific conditions, most have a fairly good range of tolerance. Grasses are tolerant plants, as are most of the things we use in our gardens.

    Still, we try to get as close to optimal as we can, since anything the plant doesn't have to fight for is energy it can spend on its root systems, or growing greenery, or just looking nice.

  • danielj_2009
    Original Author
    8 years ago

    Based on this discussion I did quite a bit of reading up and have a much better appreciation for things like base saturation %. More on that another time...

    Here's my issue for the day. I just mowed the KBG lawn and have noticed over the preceding weeks that the lawn looks nice, but it has a brownish cast over the lawn after I cut it (see second photo - I have no control over image order here). It is like the longer grass is greener (see neighbor's lawn in background) but then when I cut it the lawn turns brown by revealing stuff underneath the higher, green grass. The yellow splotches are just sunlight.

    I also included a close up photo. I can say that some of the grass stalks are brown all the way down to near the soil and are stiff (poa??), other blades are brown for the upper part of the blade, and some are green all the way up. Many blades looked ripped. I'm using a brand new mover that has one season on it. I removed the double blade (Honda HRX series) in the spring and filed it a bit to even out a couple of small gouges. Do I possibly need to get a new blade every year? Also, being in northern NJ the weather has been hot/cold/hot/cold dry/wet. Is the lawn simply reacting to weird weather or is there something I can do to green things up? I haven't used any fungicides other than corn meal in the spring and then cracked corn (aka bird food) last week.


  • morpheuspa (6B/7A, E. PA)
    8 years ago

    That does NOT look fungal, although there may be a bit of red thread from all the friggin' rain showing there at the dead tips.

    I have much the same look on my lawn post a mow right now, but without the torn tips (the robot spins her blades at 6,000 RPM and I keep them less than razor sharp as that causes some problems with tearing). Post a mow, it's got brown bits showing, which fade in two or three days as it grows.

    Near as I can figure, it's the lower level of sunlight we're getting, coupled with tons of rain. The grown grass shadows the lower stuff out, not helped by no sun.

    It should reverse this week as we get more sunlight. Unfortunately, the excessive rain also means the roots didn't grow in as much in June, so we're likely to get drought shock more easily this week...

  • danielj_2009
    Original Author
    8 years ago

    Well sounds good at least there isn't a fungal problem. It looks more shredded than I was expecting, though. I'm going to look at some newly cut grass at slow and fast cutting speeds and see if there is any difference out of curiosity. Like you said, they say only to sharpen the blade like a butter knife. Too sharp isn't good plus the blade is more fragile that way.


  • morpheuspa (6B/7A, E. PA)
    8 years ago

    Shredding seems to be related to the velocity of the blade (faster is generally better) and the velocity of the person walking the mower (slower is generally better). Mostly the walking speed matters because the mower can start to clog, seriously slowing the blade--which happens every time I mow the back line.

    danielj_2009 thanked morpheuspa (6B/7A, E. PA)
  • danielj_2009
    Original Author
    8 years ago

    OK, I promise not to make a post every time I mow the lawn, but I have to comment on an observation: In my last photo I asked about the browning grass and whether there was a problem. Yesterday I cut the grass and noticed, if anything, even more of that yellowish dry look after removing the new green growth. I observed that my neighbor's lawn, while a bit short and thin, had little of the brown tint to the lawn. He waters frequently. Seeing as this part of the lawn gets more sunlight (all day long) I wonder if it is just a matter of watering. About a 2' strip of lawn adjoining our properties is very green. It is most likely from double fertilizing and double watering on the border region.

    This got me wondering about "water deep and infrequently." I understand all the benefits, so I don't have to be sold on this method, but does the water infrequently method also come with some dryness and less than perfect, green grass? My neighbor overwaters but the grass stays green. I water properly but the grass browns out a little. Is this a normal trade off, or should I be watering more frequently, possibly? As a reminder, this is the second growing season for this new sod, and I can say the roots look well developed from cutting borders.

    Thanks for any thoughts.


  • morpheuspa (6B/7A, E. PA)
    8 years ago

    >>but does the water infrequently method also come with some dryness and less than perfect, green grass?

    In a word, yes. Proper treatment for the roots and crowns isn't necessarily perfect for the blades, which will get a little drier.

    Improperly watered lawns that see water daily will tend to be very moist and perfect, at least until the fungal problems hit. At that point, the advantage swings firmly to the infrequently watered turf.

    During summers like this one so far, where it's rained every 3 days or more often (some weeks simply don't feature a dry day), the grasses are greener and richer, but so shadowed by cloud cover that they actually don't look that great.

  • danielj_2009
    Original Author
    8 years ago

    Hmm again, very interesting. I don't believe I've ever seen a fungal outbreak since I haven't been paying attention to lawns until recently. It leads me to another question. My neighbor cuts his lawn at probably half the height that I do. (Professional landscaper). His lawn feels a little hard and thin when I walk on it in comparison to mine. More and more now my lawn has thickened up and it feels like I'm walking on soft grass rather than walking on hard dirt, if you know what I mean. I imagine that is caused by the higher mowing height and the density of the grass. In comparing the two lawns, I would guess that my lawn would be more susceptible to fungal problems due to less air and sunlight getting down to the soil level. All else being equal (soil quality, fertilizer practices) do I have to worry more about fungus when I mow high AND when Mother Nature is providing more than enough rain? Is it maybe a good idea to mow a little lower if it is rainy for a long time?

    Just curious.

    Oh, and I'm not obsessed with my neighbor's lawn. It's just that we both have KBG and the exact same growing conditions re sunlight and initial soil quality. It is like a testing laboratory for me to see how what I'm doing compares to the traditional "pro landscaper" methods.


  • morpheuspa (6B/7A, E. PA)
    8 years ago

    There are conditions where a shorter mow makes sense to work with the weather (areas with snowy winters, for instance, where snow mold is nearly certain).

    While it'll also help in temperate rainforest conditions like we're getting this year, the problem is that the conditions are unreliable. This pattern could reverse at any time and dump us into a more normal rainfall situation where the longer grasses would be an advantage.

    You could probably compensate for that by watching the weather and letting the grass grow if and when you see the weather is going to clear for a while.

    In my case, I left the mow height long and I'm simply keeping an eye out to make sure I don't get any fungal problems. The palm-sized patch that was developing went away on its own, so right now I'm completely clear.

    But if you want to compensate by mowing shorter when it's as soupy as it is right now, that would be fine. Remember to adjust down slowly, though, as an all at once cut will shock the lawn and might set off the exact problems you're trying to avoid!

    Longer grasses (all else being equal) will feel much springier underfoot due to the extra mass, plus the central stem is longer and usually stiffer to support the weight of the blades. Plus over time the grass plants spread and become very dense in and of themselves in a well-fed lawn.

    My neighbor has compensated by not mowing his lawn very much as there's simply not much available time to mow it when it's not either soaking wet or being rained on. Currently, it's running about 8" tall (which is most unusual so I'm not complaining). Underfoot, it feels terrible compared to my 3" carpet. This is a case where "all else being equal" isn't close to being true.

    danielj_2009 thanked morpheuspa (6B/7A, E. PA)
  • danielj_2009
    Original Author
    8 years ago

    OK I have this week's questions ready for you. :) This has to do with the watering schedule. We've had some very hot weather recently, with not a lot of rain, actually. I have a few splotchy areas, often near mulched beds, or near a tree's drip line where the grass is a bit shocked (I have a large Hickory tree with only high branches so there is plenty of sunlight near the tree, but it looks like water gets sucked up more in areas like this). I mowed today and most of the lawn was lush and still growing, but maybe 10% or so was shocked grass with little growth (but not brown and dormant). There are two questions: 1) Do I need to just water the entire lawn more frequently so that the shocked areas do better? I'm currently watering as little as possible, and maybe am just overdoing it a little, and 2) once I water in 1" of water on shocked grass, is there anything I can do to help it recover more quickly? Should I still wait for the ground to start drying before rewatering, or should shocked grass be kept more wet than usual while it recovers?


  • morpheuspa (6B/7A, E. PA)
    8 years ago

    This is a very complex question (you have a talent for asking them), and you're going to get different answers from almost everybody you ask.

    The simplest answer is that you can hold off watering until at least half the lawn is shocked. At that point, it desperately needs water, and even the areas that look OK are right on the edge of not looking OK. Spots that go dormant faster, like south faces or places where a brightly-painted or -sided house reflects light, can be watered more often on an as-needed basis.

    My answer is that the lawn can get 80% or more shocked before you water it. That will keep it out of dormancy, and during July and August that's really about the only thing you can expect unless the year is very unusual (as this one has been). Spots can be watered as needed if you wish, or simply allowed to stress.

    Another valid answer is to water when you see the beginnings of shock as it's only going to spread, and shock does cost the grass some energy to reverse. Not doing so does slightly increase your disease risk.

    Which one should you do? They all work, so which one feels right to you? I chose the 80% shock point as the furthest I can let it go before it starts to drop into dormancy (even there, I sometimes spot water the areas that will flirt with dormancy sooner). It keeps the number of waterings per season down, which keeps the amount of potable water I'm throwing onto grass lower. So far this year, I've watered twice--both times in May.

    Answer 2 is simpler. Just resume decent watering to keep the grass healthy--if that spot requires water every five days, so be it. You can add 2 oz of shampoo per thousand square feet to help with water penetration, but no other care is necessary.

    If you can discover why that spot requires more water, fix it if you can. Removing a rock isn't a major issue. You can't fix a bright reflection from the house, or the fact that it's next to a (hot) mulch layer.

  • morpheuspa (6B/7A, E. PA)
    8 years ago

    Just for idle fun, I checked my nearest SCAN site (Mahantango mountain, Pennsylvania, which isn't all that close, actually).

    Soil moisture is holding around 17% at the 2 inch level (still fairly damp), rising to 34% (pretty saturated) as you go down to 20 inches. That's not indicative of water problems through the soil in that locale, and that's holding true even on my own lawn. Although the topmost layer is now dry, it's moist underneath from all the rainfall.

    The gardens are holding beautifully, except for the dahlia which have very shallow root systems and are sensitive to the top 2" drying out. I watered those today.

    The grass is fine, but if it doesn't rain in the next four or five days it's going to start to shock.

    Your soil, being sandier, is going to dry out faster as it stores less water to begin with, and areas near hotter surfaces will dry out even faster than that. It's entirely reasonable that those spots do need a little watering.

    danielj_2009 thanked morpheuspa (6B/7A, E. PA)
  • danielj_2009
    Original Author
    8 years ago

    Thanks for the pointers. I guess I was under the impression that if I mowed high and watered deep I wouldn't have to water more than once every week in the 90's or two weeks in the 80's. The problem is that the entire yard isn't uniform in its water needs, and there are areas that need more, even when the ground doesn't seem that dry. So, as you say, my options are to just spot water as needed, water the entire lawn a little more often to suit those areas, or let it go into shock more and then water everything. My first inclination is just to water everything a little more frequently. I can play around with it and see.


    Just one follow up: Re my point #2, if a patch of grass is shocked and I give it an inch of water, is there anything else that can be done to help it recover, as in water again more frequently for awhile, or any other tricks to help, or do you just have to let the grass to what it does?

  • yardtractor1
    8 years ago
    last modified: 8 years ago

    Likely a soil problem. If it's hydrophobic, try shampooing and see if that helps. Unfortunately, that didn't do it for my lawn, so I added organic matter for increased moisture retention. I plug aerated the area, removed the plugs, top dressed with a bag of peat moss and raked it (actually, I used a drag as I did a number of areas at the same time) the peat moss into the holes. That worked for me.


    As morph mentioned, repeatedly bringing the turf out of shock takes its toll on the grass.

  • morpheuspa (6B/7A, E. PA)
    8 years ago

    >>I guess I was under the impression that if I mowed high and watered deep I wouldn't have to water more than once every week in the 90's or two weeks in the 80's. The problem is that the entire yard isn't uniform in its water needs, and there are areas that need more, even when the ground doesn't seem that dry.

    Eventually? Yes, but it does take time for roots to grow and develop. Even my fast-growing annuals aren't at mature root systems yet for the year, as shown by the fact that there was noticeable wilting late this afternoon. I'm currently watering (and feeding) a bit.

    As YardTractor1 noted, using copious organic material in the bad spots will tend to help with water retention--and try the shampoo method to see if that helps (try it several times, actually, as waxy or greasy buildup from bacteria can take a while to dissolve and get rid of).

    This may be a locale called a dry spot, where the soil's gone hydrophobic. Heavy and repeated application of shampoo will reverse that (again, the wax and grease that bacteria ooze out causes this). You can safely go to 10 ounces per thousand square feet per every 2 week application as long as it rains at least an inch (or you irrigate that much) before doing it again.

    That's something I do in the gardens. The level of organic feeding is so heavy that the entire soil profile tries to turn into a dry spot. To counter that, I use 2 ounces per thousand of a sodium lauryl sulfate 5% solution weekly (which is much stronger than shampoo). For me, it's easy; I drop it in the fertilization system with the weekly Miracle Gro boost and/or the kelp I'm using.

    There are entire sections of lawn that drop well before the others--right now, as of today, the section just uphill from my pear tree is starting to wilt. Since rainfall is due on Sunday and Monday, I'm not very concerned about this.

    If I looked at the southern face, the same is probably true there. That gets dawn to dusk sun, plus the reflection from the off-white house.

    >>Re my point #2, if a patch of grass is shocked and I give it an inch of water, is there anything else that can be done to help it recover, as in water again more frequently for awhile, or any other tricks to help, or do you just have to let the grass to what it does?

    Not letting it get shocked again for a while would certainly help, so anticipating any problems and watering at the first sign of any wilting will certainly speed recovery.

    Shampoo, again, will help by breaking the tendency of water to stick to itself and ignore everything else (this is one of the reasons we use soap in the shower). It'll help the water to stick to the roots.

  • danielj_2009
    Original Author
    8 years ago

    Thanks yard and morpheus. I'm not sure there is a big mystery as to the dryness. As mentioned, there is a large hickory tree near the dry spot, which almost profiles the drip line of the tree's very high limbs. The upper half of the lawn gets shaded from the late afternoon sun by this tree, and I have very lush growth there. The lower half of the lawn is 100% sun all day. The parts that get dry are near the curb, near the planting bed (in full sun), along the border with my neighbor, who does not water his lawn, and right under the drip line of this big tree, yet still in the sun 100%. So I'm thinking it is just water getting used more by the tree. At the same time, the ground doesn't feel real dry in the shocked areas. So I don't know if that supports the waxy build up theory or not. I did shampoo at 4 oz/1000 weekly for 3, maybe 4 weeks last year. I suppose another application can't hurt.


    Also, I should add that this area has always been drier than other parts, so that would suggest against there being a dry spot in the ground. I've added organic matter as much as I could, but the lawn and soil is still under 2 years old. Oh, and I have a large blue atlas cedar across the driveway and there is a similar dry area on the south side of this tree, but not on the north side.

  • morpheuspa (6B/7A, E. PA)
    8 years ago

    Yeah, that solves the Dry Spot Issue. Trees suck up water like nobody's business.

    Same here. The southern side of my pin oak blasts out, the northern side is generally quite lush even in drought due to the shadowing. And that tree isn't terribly old, nor terribly large yet.

    Mulching with sawdust pellets (Equine Pine from Tractor Supply being my favorite) does help to retain a vast amount of water, plus the sawdust will break down into dark, rich humus eventually that holds water like crazy. You can do anything from 10 pounds per thousand square feet (quite trim and of limited impact) to a quarter inch when it inflates with water (the dry pellets are quite compact).

    Over the course of eight years, I've reduced most of my dry spots to the point where they only drop a day or two before the rest of the lawn, but it took sawdust, imported leaves, and lots of time to do that. Before that? I spot watered when necessary.

    And yes, you can repeat the shampoo at this point. It's not going to hurt anything. Your sodium levels of 1.0/1.5% are more than good enough to tolerate quite a lot of shampoo added.

  • danielj_2009
    Original Author
    8 years ago

    Holding out more secrets, eh morpheus?? :) Obviously there is a sensible explanation for my initial thought: I recall dchall saying that wood as in wood chips was a bad thing in the lawn as the wood would consume a large amount of nitrogen for a long time (maybe when buried?). Other than the small particle size of the dissolved pellets, what issues might there be with nitrogen consumption?

  • morpheuspa (6B/7A, E. PA)
    8 years ago

    I hate to say it, but when asked, "Tell me everything you know about lawn care," you'd best be prepared for a several-days stay. I'd advise note-taking.

    Lordy, buried wood sucks up nitrogen like nobody's business! If you buried sawdust, it'd be a hundred times worse (but not last as long) as buried wood chips due to the square-cube law; the surface area of the very tiny sawdust particle is very large compared to its volume, and there are a LOT of sawdust particles per pound. For the wood chip, the surface area is smaller, and there are far fewer chips. All things considered, if the sawdust has a grand total surface area, all sucking up nitrogen at once, a hundred times greater than an equal weight of chips, that wouldn't surprise me in the slightest.

    Things differ at the surface. It can only snag N from the soil surface, where the grass isn't feeding (the feeder roots are further down), and up there it'll happily grow colonies of nitrogen-fixing bacteria that are quite pleased to pull N2 from the air and transform it. It's an expensive process, so fairly slow.

    By the time the particles filter down, they've been shredded, bound atmospheric nitrogen, and aren't really wood any longer--they're early stage humus. Quite a lot of humus; the transfer percentage of wood to humus is very high.

    In fall, you can accelerate the final decay by adding nitrogen in the form of Milo, grains, or synthetic N (dealer's choice) that'll help speed decomp. Or just feed normally and let nature take its course.

    You shouldn't notice any yellowing of the lawn from surface application of sawdust, but on the off chance that worms go nuts and start carrying the stuff below ground (unlikely; they do that with leaves to munch on during late fall, early winter, and early spring and aren't much interested in wood), just hit the area with some Milo and it'll re-green in three or four days post-watering or rainfall.

  • danielj_2009
    Original Author
    8 years ago

    Always enlightening, morph! I guess my biggest surprise is that even a fully developed lawn doesn't necessarily have the root system developed by July needed to withstand the infrequent watering that we strive for.

    There is a company that reclaims old wood and repurposes it nearby. Is there any issue with using hardwood sawdust instead of pine, if I can get it? I do recall something about maple leaves being good for preventing dandelions, so I thought hardwood might do something I might not want.

  • morpheuspa (6B/7A, E. PA)
    8 years ago

    It does depend on the weather. But we often warn people that their September-planted lawn won't have fully developed root systems by next summer and will need a little coddling during warm periods.

    It takes about a year, on average, to get the roots where you want them from the starting point. If the starting point is already fairly far along, like in most mature lawns, three to six months should see most of the task done, if not all of it.

    Technically, any sawdust of any wood would do perfectly well. However, it has to be from untreated wood. Pressure treated, varnished, or painted woods wouldn't be something you'd want to spread on the lawn, the chemistry isn't great for the grass or soil.

    danielj_2009 thanked morpheuspa (6B/7A, E. PA)
  • danielj_2009
    Original Author
    8 years ago

    Yeah, I drove by their place today and it reminded me that they have a lot of moldings with white primer on them. There's probably a lot of treated wood, too. The vac system hooks up to an 18 wheeler type trailer, so it might be a bit difficult to cart the stuff off. Such is always the case. The beer guy has 500 lb wet batches of grains that a local farmer picks up. He offered me some, but practically I can't see how I can get enough to make the trouble worth it. I guess I'm stuck with buying bags for the forseeable future.

  • morpheuspa (6B/7A, E. PA)
    8 years ago

    That does tend to be the problem with larger operations, their waste stream products are either overly processed or hefty.

    Sometimes you can locate an artisan-level person who'll be happy to have you cart off their "garbage." If there's a small, local carpentry shop in your area, it's worth a try.

    Similarly, very small micro-breweries or home brewers might be willing to give you their spent grains. They don't have to throw 'em out that way.

    As an artisan soap maker, my waste products are shards and bits of soap, along with any severely failed batches (which is extremely rare as they can almost always be rescued). My "waste" soap gets thrown into the garden to act as a secondary application of soap to the soil! 100% soap is completely biodegradable as well.

  • danielj_2009
    Original Author
    8 years ago

    Well at least you'll have a very clean garden if nothing else!

  • danielj_2009
    Original Author
    8 years ago

    I have a new candidate for what my dry spot problem might be. Very late last night (no wind, little evaporation) I ran another tuna can test. Last year I calculated 45 minutes with an 8 gpm sprinkler system gave me an inch of water. Last night's test showed barely 1/2 inch, and especially in the dry spot area. I confirmed this morning that I'm still getting 8 gpm by my water meter so I'm not sure what's going on. I think I'm going to do a mega tuna can test and really see what my levels look like.

  • morpheuspa (6B/7A, E. PA)
    8 years ago

    That also wouldn't help, you're right! Is the zone isolated from the others so you can just run it longer? If not, replacing some heads might be your only option--if you have the water pressure to do so. If not, replace the other heads with lower flow ones and run that whole zone longer.

  • danielj_2009
    Original Author
    8 years ago

    I have some options as far as extending the reach on the one hand, or increasing the spray diffusion and lowering the reach on a head by head basis. I have commercial sized tuna cans (about 4 or 5 inches high). I'm going to accumulate a few more and then put out maybe 10 of them and see how uniform the distribution is. I think the heads themselves are fine as the flow rate is still over 8 gpm like last year. I'm pretty sure this same area was dry last year, so maybe I just didn't get an accurate tuna test for that area.

  • morpheuspa (6B/7A, E. PA)
    8 years ago
    last modified: 8 years ago

    Here's a tip that came to mind today that'll enhance any water you do get.

    In weather like this, when the soil's now dry through the top of the profile (there's moisture underneath, but it's now too far under the grass roots to help much), apply shampoo.

    It'll help the soil absorb any rainfall we get from the storms today and tomorrow, help minimize runoff (since the soil will have no inclination to repel water), distribute it through the profile better, and help it adhere to the grass roots.

    You can't make up for really dry weather, but you can help enhance a rainfall that might or might not be enough to more likely to be enough.

    And in a case like this, you don't have to be shy. I used 4 ounces per thousand of 5% sodium lauryl sulfate, equivalent to 8-12 ounces of shampoo. Just don't do that again until we get several rainfalls.

  • danielj_2009
    Original Author
    8 years ago

    morpheus - I am trying to find a local dealer who can get Equine Pine. You said 10lb/M sf would be insignificant. What do you recommend to be a good heavy dose of pine without being ridiculous about it? It is so cheap I can buy a lot. I have 9000 sf so if I buy 10 bags, that'll amount to about 45 lb/M sf. Am I in the ballpark there?

  • morpheuspa (6B/7A, E. PA)
    8 years ago

    45 pounds per K is well in the ballpark for light to low-moderate protection--and I wouldn't recommend much more, actually. The stuff swells big time.

    Equine Pine was just a personal preference because I happen to like the scent (it does NOT go through the spreader so I carry it in buckets and hurl the stuff).

    Any compressed sawdust pellet will be just fine (horse bedding pellet, in other words). Your local Tractor Supply should have plenty in stock in the animal feed section (usually right next to the horse food and near the goat and other larger livestock food).

  • danielj_2009
    Original Author
    8 years ago
    last modified: 8 years ago

    How about number of applications per year until the soil is established? Any time of year OK (except when cold and I suppose probably not good to do when mulching in leaves)? I'm trying to find a supplier in the northern part of the state so I don't have to travel 50 miles with 500 lb of wood in my car. I don't have a truck. :( Some places have hardwood sawdust but quantities are too large.


    Found it! Tractor Supply Co. has their own brand that is the same as Equine Pine for $5.99. About a 20 mile drive, not too bad. I'm gonna pick up 10 or 15 bags tonight if I can get away.

  • morpheuspa (6B/7A, E. PA)
    8 years ago

    It's something you need more during hot and dry periods, so I might slot it in for June. Once a year is usually enough for this as decay is very slow.

    If you wanted to transform the soil using it (and it is cheap), then April and July. You might be able to slot in a September application, but again, check the state of decay. If there's still a layer left, skip it.

    While sawdust is a fantastic soil conditioner once it actually rots in, you're limited on what you can drop just due to the fact that it hangs around for ages.

  • danielj_2009
    Original Author
    8 years ago

    Hi morpheus. I mailed in two soil samples for Logan analysis, which should arrive in OH on Monday. I've reviewed this long thread in anticipation for adding more organics through the fall. I think I missed my May feeding of soybean, but at least got some OceanGro down. I'll post the Logan results when I get them, but I wanted to review the organic feeding schedule again. Last year I did 15lb/k of soybean in Aug, Sept, Oct, plus 20lb/k alfalfa in September only. I'll also drop some more OceanGro when I put down the leaves.

    Can you briefly review the relative merits of soybean vs OceanGro? The soybean is so much more expensive, which I'm willing to spend, but what am I getting from soybean that I don't get from Oceangro? I know soybean has more N and you said 20% OM, vs OceanGro's lower N, 10% OM and higher Fe content.

  • morpheuspa (6B/7A, E. PA)
    8 years ago

    It's probably time to start a new thread with the new results. This one's gettin' hefty.

    Of all the feedings to miss, May is the most minor. It's much more important to feed well in late summer (organically) and fall (whatever). My first fall feeding went yesterday, and is now waiting for rainfall to activate.

    I tend to feed organically on August 1, September 1, and October 1, but technically the October 1 application is optional. I still like to do it, and it seems to help a lot.

    Overall, if the price of OceanGro is much cheaper than soybean, go with the OceanGro unless you have a really good reason to use the soy. In my case, it's the other way around; soy is much cheaper than Milorganite, so soy is my heavy-hitter.

    Soy: About 7-1-2, but if you said 7-2-1 I wouldn't blink. Good nitrogen, 100% slow release, and an excellent overall feed. Soy has no other defining characteristics other than being a good feeding. Around 20% will eventually become humus, but soy is on the low end due to the high nitrogen (which means high protein).

    OceanGro: 5-5-0. Good nitrogen, 90% slow release, and an excellent overall feed. Good, but slow, phosphorus source, although in a high P soil I'd avoid it for that reason. Contains 2.5% iron, so it's a good source of Fe as well. Around 10% will eventually become humus.

  • danielj_2009
    Original Author
    8 years ago

    Yeah OceanGrow is under $10 while soybean is over $20, and I have to order it. I'll use up what soybean I have, get more OceanGrow and enough alfalfa for September. I had a sneezing fit all while applying alfalfa last year, so I might be allergic to it! Thanks again, and I'll start that new thread when I get my results.

  • danielj_2009
    Original Author
    8 years ago

    Morpheus - I should have my soil results back shortly. Would it be helpful for me to repost last year's test result along with the new one? This will be my last post in this thread. I agree it is getting a bit unwieldy.

  • morpheuspa (6B/7A, E. PA)
    8 years ago

    Yes, definitely make sure I have both on-hand. It helps, particularly if something isn't working as expected. Due to the rather ridiculous rainfall levels, some applications may have leached out.

    In your case, I'm most concerned about the phosphorus levels. Your calcium and magnesium were fine, with potassium just a little trim. Fortunately, phosphorus doesn't leach easily (but does erode).

    danielj_2009 thanked morpheuspa (6B/7A, E. PA)