No you do not. In fact you really never "need" to aerate. Aeration is a service offered by lawn care professionals simply so they can continue to make their boat payments all through the winter. Golf course professionals aerate their turf for different reasons that a home owner would have. When you see them doing it, don't assume you need to also.

Do you have a hard soil issue? There is a solution to that which will only cost you about a dollar up to the first 15,000 square feet of lawn.

Let me preface my comments by saying that dchall and I have a long running disagreement regarding the superiority of liquid surfactants/polymers/wetting agents to reduce soil compaction versus the tradtional core aeration method. So here's my take on the issue.

First, core aeration does not have to be a "service offered by lawn care professionals simply so they can continue to make their boat payments". Anyone can run a lawn aerator and they are available from any rental equipment company. Heck, I'm getting to be an old lady and I can still run one! (And I'm not a lawn care service provider, just a horticultural consultant and educator).

Second, the liquid soil conditioners tend to be topical applications only. They will for sure help water penetration with highly compacted or hydrophobic lawns but they really have no impact in loosening the soil below the grass roots. That can only be accomplished by allowing oxygen to enter this soil level (the core aeration) and implanting organic matter via a spreading of compost or mowing over the removed soil plugs.

Finally, there is no scientific proof to support these claims that liquid aeration products/wetting agents are effective in reducing compaction or should be used in place of traditional core aeration. Virtually all the hype comes from the manufacturers/distributors or from lawn care services selling the stuff. And be leery of homemade concoctions touted to have similar attributes - many of these can contain ingredients that can be counterproductive to healthy lawn growth. And either may be products that deviate from accepted organic methods.

From Colorado State Univ. extension service: Companies selling these products may insist that their aeration "tool" effectively loosens compacted soils, aggregates sandy soils and generally enhances water retention and turf root growth.

While it is difficult to ascertain what is contained in these products, a few have been shown to contain liquid humates (essentially liquid organic matter) and soap-like materials like sodium lauryl (or laureth) sulfate. It is simply wishful thinking to believe that a highly diluted solution of either of these applied to a compacted soil will in any way affect soil bulk density. There is no indication that ANY of these products has ever been scientifically evaluated for effectiveness.

Simply stated, there is no "chemical" substitute for physical remediation of soil compaction - namely the traditional core cultivation techniques that have been used for years on all types of turf areas. At best, these "wonder products" might provide some minor degree of wetting agent effect - and nothing more. Wetting agents increase spreading and penetration of liquids across surfaces and into or throughout surfaces.

Personally, I believe core aeration the most benefical thing you can do for your lawn, especially here in the PNW where winter rains rountinely lead to compacted soils but with no lack of water penetration (barring poor drainage issues).

It's your choice of course but be cautious with shortcuts or any 'magic bullets'. They are not always the best approach and they are seldom magic.

For starters, the main reason why core aeration has become such a profitable endeavor has to do with so many home owners have no knowledge on how to properly take care of their lawns. After all, lawns are an invention of human beings not of mother nature. A term that needs to be remembered is bulk density: how dense and heavy the subsoil of a lawn is. The higher the bulk density, the heavier and more compacted that soil is and the more difficulty those grass plants have in creating that nice lush lawn. Core aeration reduces bulk density by pulling a soil plug from the soil, allowing the remaining soil to expand into those spaces and open up more pore spaces. Too many howmeowners only aerate once or twice a year, whereas once or twice a month should be the norm. The lower the bulk density of the soil, the deeper and more numerous those grass roots are and less susceptible to drought and disease. Surfactants are a short term solution to the presence of a subsurface hardpan that prevents water percolating deeper into the soil. It still does nothing about increasing the porosity and amount of oxygen in the soil. The secret: core aerate until the worm population can start to take over the job. They after all, do aerating for a living, 24-7 and not just to a four inch depth, but down several feet. Those worm mounds in the yard, they can be raked or rolled flat, with the side benefit that they are also a wonderful fertilizer.

The question as to whether shampoo works to aerate the soil shouldn't be a mystery. I would be surprised if no ag university hasn't done lab tests to prove it one way or the other. There must be literature out there on this somewhere.

Anthony: you fooled me there. You started out sounding like homeowners were getting ripped off with aeration, but then you go on to say it needs to be done monthly! I wasn't expecting that. I'm not sure you explained the worm thing sufficiently because you then go on to say if you have a good worm population then you don't need to aerate at all because they are doing a much better job of it. If I can get my worm population high, by any means and not necessarily by aerating, then why do I need to core aerate?

I should add that I shampooed based on recommendations here and I have no idea who is right on the issue. I do note that people here with great lawns do not aerate (and have lots of worms).

Did you read the excerpt from CSU??

It is simply wishful thinking to believe that a highly diluted solution of either of these applied to a compacted soil will in any way affect soil bulk density. There is no indication that ANY of these products has ever been scientifically evaluated for effectiveness.

Anecdotal evidence that shampoos actually aerate is hardly supportive of that argument. A surfactant - like shampoo - can help with water penetration but will not increase aeration/oxygen exchange or reduce compaction. There is NOTHING in that substance that can possibly contribute to that end.

One would hope that we have gotten away from the days of Jerry Baker or Howard Garrett and their bizarre homemade conncoctions that have no basis in horticultural science but I guess old myths die hard.

For the record, even I think core aerating on a monthly basis is excessive......annually is fine.

Re anthony:

"Too many howmeowners only aerate once or twice a year, whereas once or twice a month should be the norm"

You seriously believe that homeowners should aerate monthly. Insanity!

This post was edited by MichaelMassapequa on Fri, Nov 7, 14 at 13:27

gardengal: While I really appreciate the info you are providing, the statement from CSU does not address my comment. They are saying that nobody, and that includes CSU, has done a legitimate study to determine whether shampoo will do what some here think it does. CSU saying that it is bunk is pretty much meaningless unless they have data to back that up. Otherwise it is just an appeal to authority to say CSU is the authority on the matter.

On the other hand, that doesn't give sellers of these products the right to say whatever they want. CSU may be correct that there is no study on the issue (which is what surprised me) but that does not mean it is worthless.

I have to believe core aeration is not necessary in many situations, or shampoo really does work in some situations. There are too many people with great lawns who never aerate. How critical can it be in all but the worst soils?

>>There is NOTHING in that substance that can possibly contribute to that end.

Well, except negatively charged ions that are absolutely enormous compared to even a calcium ion (which is big).

Even simple water penetration can help aerate your soil indirectly--by encouraging an environment that's good for fungi. Which, as they inflate and deflate, aerate beautifully. Then, of course, the worms like to feed on fungal and bacterial populations, plus organic material, and aerate themselves.

Anecdotally, which is not scientific, it works--and too many people report it works. Permanent? Certainly not, but you can use the looser soil to your advantage to make it permanent.

I only apply once or twice a year now as maintenance. And I can easily dig to 24" with very little effort.

>>There are too many people with great lawns who never aerate. How critical can it be in all but the worst soils?

Ten years, no aeration, and it started out as tapped corn field--in full resource collapse with essentially no organic material.

I'd challenge anybody to say my lawn needs aeration. It doesn't. The roots are extraordinarily deep for bluegrass and I'm spending this fall again deepening them further. Worm populations are extremely high (digging is a worm hazard).

There are a few reasons I approve of aeration. Direct injection of small amounts of very late-stage organic material (we're talking fully weathered compost, peat moss, or humic matter). Lowering a high spot the easy way. And maybe injection of phosphorus on a severely depleted soil (although I didn't bother).

Doing it monthly is not a great idea, particularly if you don't want to keep disturbing the natural distribution of your soil food web. Which I don't.

No need for Raindrop to aerate (if he/she is still reading). I have used shampoo and it helped make the soil softer. Shampoo is very inexpensive, so why not try it if your soil is hard to dig. Aeration brings up weed seeds. The less you disrupt the soil, the better. Encourage the worms! They are the best aerators.

I have a real problem with Gardengal's argument. She offers a statement that there is no study proving that "liquid aeration" products work as evidence that they don't work. That is not true - you can't indict something for lack of proof either way. Secondly, you offer no proof that mechanical core aeration works - it is only your assertion that you expect to be taken as proof.

I have a quote from Cornell in association with NYSTA (NY State Turf Association) newsletter - unfortunately it is a subscription thing, so I can't provide a Link.

"Coring on soils with less than 20% clay content will have a short-lived effect on compaction. Studies show that for about 3-4 weeks soil bulk density is reduced before returning to pre-cultivation levels."

95+% of the soils have 20% clay -- it just wasn't studied.

So...

"Simply stated, there is no "chemical" substitute for physical remediation of soil compaction - namely the traditional core cultivation techniques that have been used for years on all types of turf areas. "

is not proof of anything. Because something is traditional does not negate the 3-4 week study findings. As a matter of fact, the study findings seem to support Anthony703's opinion -- whether other folks find that crazy or not.

If you use "tradition" as anecdotal proof, then as Morph indicated you must accept anecdotal evidence from the "liquid aeartion" crowd, too. And I agree with Morph -- I have seen far, far too many people that have had luck with liquid aeration to dismiss it out of hand.

Gardengal also makes another assumption that isn't true. She refers to "Virtually all the hype comes from the manufacturers/distributors or from lawn care services selling the stuff.". Due to the relatively high cost (for what they are) of liquid aeration products, Morph and I studied, used and offered generic formulas for DIY versions back in 2009/2010 -- neither of us ever made a dime from them. They are freely available on another forum.

Lastly, what's with the comment about:

"Personally, I believe core aeration the most benefical thing you can do for your lawn, especially here in the PNW where winter rains rountinely lead to compacted soils but with no lack of water penetration (barring poor drainage issues). "

The forest floor isn't compacted - doesn't it rain just as hard there? And "routinely"? The only thing that mechanical aeration can cure is mechanical compaction. If you lack a herd of cattle or a fleet of trucks, exactly where is mechanical compaction coming from? Hint: it ain't rainfall. Look into the heavy use of synthetic fertilizers that contain zero organic matter. Soils without a reasonable supply of organic matter will behave like compacted soils, Mechanical aeration is (at best) a very temporary solution. So are liquid aeration products -- but they are far easier to apply on on frequent basis. The long-term solution is clear -- get the organic matter rising, but that is a long, involved battle that can take many years...

I like to thank members for taking the time answering my question. Is it too late to aerate and how do members here keep their neighbour's cats from pooping on their lawn?

In most locales, it's too late to aerate. Both northern and southern grasses are shutting down for the season. Your next window is probably April to May.

Cats: good luck with that. :)

Now that I actually gave the answer, the simple fact is that if you have a lot of worm piles, you probably don't need to aerate. The worms are already busy doing it for you.