this time of year your need to vertislice ( dethatcher ) and over seed and fertilize. Go to Home Depot and rent one for like $50 for 4 hours. Go in one direction rake up clippings. Now go perpendicular to that pattern now seed and fertilize.

If if you aerate then seed it will grow a big clumpy mess due to seed falling in the holes. I have fescue ( well had fescue I just killed it all to start over)

Based on what I've seen and researched, there is never a need to aerate if your soil is healthy. There are a great many people with excellent lawns who have never aerated or dethatched. Most people think their soil is compacted because it is hard when dry. Hard when dry isn't really a problem. Soil chemistry is more important than aerating or dethatching. If the chemistry is right, you don't need those things.

If you want to soften up the soil, do a forum search on shampoo. Also, if you want long term success, get a soil test from Logan Labs and morpheus will help you interpret the results. See other posts re Logan Labs to see what I mean.

Good luck!

Based on what I've seen and researched, there is never a need to aerate if your soil is healthy.

You don't need health insurance or a doctor if your healthy.

Soil chemistry is more important than aerating or dethatching. If the chemistry is right, you don't need those things.

And how many years does it take to do that? And how many years to get a sufficient worm population to "naturally" aerate the soil?

As long has I have you, how long does it take to raise the OM of soil at the 4" level by 1%?

I have never personally used a push aerator, but have watched my neighbor nearly kill himself doing his front yard (half the size of your yard). The thing is a beast and can really knock you around, and often doesn't penetrate as much as you'd expect (unless you had more weight, which makes it even tougher to use). Ones pulled by a lawn tractor seem to do much better. The other issue to consider is how to handle the plugs you make. I've seen those plugs take a long time to disappear on my neighbors lawn.

You'll find mixed opinions about mechanical aeration on this forum. I think reality is that it's not as bad as some people think, nor as necessary as others do. Logic tends to lead to the fact that unless your yard gets vehicles driven on it or lots of people running on it (sports field), most likely the soil is not compacted to the point of needing mechanical intervention. Try the shampoo treatment first (way cheaper and easier than aerating) and get a soil sample done.

By the looks of it your yard isn't too bad. But who knows what the previous owners did, so it could be worse. I knew nothing when I bought my house 8 years ago, but simply following the "Scott's" advertising worked simply because the previous owners did nothing but cut the grass.

Start off slow, get to know your property before going full hog on it. I would go with cutting the lawn real low, dethatch/vertislice (rental at HD, avoid the overseeder), rake up, seed and fertilize (just starter fertilizer, no combo stuff). Then in the spring you can apply your pre-emergent weed stuff and see how the lawn goes. See how the lawn responds and then plan on major work next fall if needed. This also allows you to see what drainage problems you have and other issues.

yardtractor, to answer your questions,

4 inch samples: Back yard went from 3.8 to 5.2 OM in 1 year and front went from 6.1 to 7.5, not bad.

Worm population in the fall of season 1 was excellent. Some of them looked like snakes. I think they liked the soybean, alfalfa and mulched leaves.

Adjusting the soil chemistry, as I've learned, depends on the exchange capacity of the soil and how bad the soil is to start with. Amending inorganic nutrients can be very quick in some cases, and slow in others, such as Fe.

All in all, it doesn't take long to get the lawn in shape if it isn't a disaster to start with, and most aren't a disaster, including this one.

The OP, dosstx, said his lawn was "decent looking" so I don't think we're even talking about a sick patient. It looks to me like he has a stomach ache. Let's not do brain surgery, especially when we don't even have a diagnosis and don't know if it will be effective.

Yard - I'm not trying to be argumentative. I'm coming from the perspective of a relatively new person who has learned enough to be dangerous, I suppose. BUT, dosstx comes in here under the believe, if I interpret correctly, that a lawn needs sun, water, and aeration. My suggestion to him is that before you spend a lot of time and money on equipment, you should do a little research and determine for yourself if aeration is going to do any good. At best, it seems to me it should be used sparingly and for specific reasons, not as a preventive maintenance routine.

Again, the goal is to help dosstx go down the most effective path.

I've been accused of being too cynical when I say this but here goes: Core aeration serves only one purpose - to make the boat payments for your yard guys. You'll get a lot of advice to do it annually, and that's because they have lots of boats.

If you are new to lawns, you need to relax. Here's something I wrote a couple years ago that might help you get into lawn care.

Basics of Lawn Care

After reading numerous books and magazines on lawn care, caring for lawns at seven houses in my life, and reading numerous forums where real people write in to discuss their successes and failures, I have decided to side with the real people and dispense with the book and magazine authors. I don't know what star their planet rotates around but it's not mine. With that in mind, here is the collected wisdom of the Internet savvy homeowners and lawn care professionals summarized in a few words. If you follow the advice here you will have conquered at least 50% of all lawn problems. Once you have these three elements mastered, then you can worry about weeds (if you have any), dog spots, and striping your lawn. But if you are not doing these three things, they will be the first three things suggested for you to correct.

1. Watering
Water deeply and infrequently. Deeply means at least an inch in every zone, all at once. Infrequently means monthly during the cool months and no more than weekly during the hottest part of summer. Do not spread this out and water for 10 minutes every day. If your grass looks dry before the month/week is up, water longer next time. If that does not work, then you might have to water more than once per week during the summer's hottest period. Deep watering grows deep, drought resistant roots. Infrequent watering allows the top layer of soil to dry completely which kills off many shallow rooted weeds.

You will have to learn to judge when to water your own lawn. If you live in El Paso your watering will be different than if you live in Vermont. Adjust your watering to your type of grass, temperature, humidity, wind, and soil type. It is worth noting that this technique is used successfully by professionals in Phoenix, so...just sayin.' The other factors make a difference. If you normally water 1 inch per week and you get 1/2 inch of rain, then adjust and water only 1/2 inch that week.

2. Mowing
Every week mulch mow at the highest setting on your mower. Most grasses are the most dense when mowed tall. However, bermuda, centipede, and bent grasses will become the most dense when they are mowed at the lowest setting on your mower. In fact there are special mowers that can mow these grasses down to 1/16 inch. Dense grass shades out weeds, keeps the soil cooler, and uses less water than thin grass. Tall grass can feed the deep roots you developed in #1 above. Tall grass does not grow faster than short grass nor does it look shaggy sooner. Once all your grass is at the same height, tall grass just looks plush.

3. Fertilizing
Fertilize regularly. I fertilize 5 times per year using organic fertilizer. Which fertilizer you use is much less important than numbers 1 and 2 above. Follow the directions on the bag and do not overdo it (unless you use organics in which case you may overdo it without fear of hurting anything).

At this point you do not have to worry about weed and feed products - remember at this point you are just trying to grow grass, not perfect it. Besides once you are doing these three things correctly, your weed problems should go away without herbicide.

Back to me now. Note that I never mention dethatching, core aeration, rototilling, or anything else. You should be able to simplify to water, mow, and fertilize.

Oh also, can you prune the canopy of your trees to let in more light? That will help in the back.

I encourage you to consider all advice and sources yet the
trust but verify adage is wise to follow. Internet searches are your friend. Do
not take my word or so called internet “experts” as gospel truth.

I appreciate alternative methods and could care less if
people want to use soap and other solutions. If you can build a
healthy soil environment for your lawn and that works for you, great, that is
the result most want. There is no need to disparage any profession to promote
your own ideology.

Use an internet Search. Put “aeration pros and cons”, “aeration
scientific studies”, or any other term you feel relevant to your goals. Pages upon
pages will show up on the advantages of aeration. If you can find any on the
disadvantages outside of anecdotal internet forum posts, the advantages far
outweigh the negatives. Dchall_san_antonio responded to another thread with a
link to surfactants that only confirmed my position and discredited his in
every link I pulled up.

Whether you need aeration or not, it is far more likely to benefit
rather than hurt. The references to tractors and weeds and seeds don’t
germinate below 4 inches is either inconsequential or absurd. My previous
search suggestion provides many examples if you are open to learn.

Dchall_san_antonio for example is one source I would suggest
you verify. Start by checking out examples of the fine work and results he has
produced with the many lawns he claims to have maintained. Let me know when you
find the pictures showing the examples of his work since even with his over
10,200 comments, I am having trouble finding more than a few and they are not
compelling. I am waiting to be enlightened.

Also consider his credentials. He claims he can remember terms
from his wife’s study, has read some books, but then realized most he needed to
know could be found on lawn forums from like-minded enthusiasts. Please feel
free to expand Dchall_san_antonio if I missed something.

Put “boat payment” in the search box on the top of the page
and read how many times Dchall_san_antonio comes up as the author. Insulting an
entire industry seems to be a favorite pastime of his. While there are levels
of competence and integrity in all fields, the insults Dchall_san_antonio makes
are beyond disrespectful. As in any field, most landscape professionals have
actual experience, training and professionalism gained from certifications, degrees and actual familiarity and experience with those they
provide services for.

Dchall_san_antonio never offers links to scientific studies
supporting his points and claims there are none supporting the benefits. Again, do your own search and associate you
own verb to the following.

I quote; dchall_san_antonio(8 San Antonio)

I politely disagree
that aerating is a good idea in general or in any specific case. If you were a
lawn guy selling the benefits of aerating, and collecting $250 for doing it,
then I'd strongly encourage you to aerate, but other than making his boat
payment, there's no reason to aerate. In fact if you want us to, we can give
you a list of reasons why it's a bad idea. If you have any benefits you can
think of, please, we've heard them all. Those are rumors, hearsay, old wive's
tales, myths, and urban legends. There's no science to demonstrate that removing
plugs of soil has any benefit.

Not only does every reputable golf course, sports field and park
with budget follow aeration practices but every organic gardening organization
of any stature recommend. They lose jobs and customers if they don’t deliver
and are always open to more economical solutions but even if they supplement
with surfactants, still aerate in almost every case.

If you don’t need aeration, fine, don’t use it. If you do aerate and you didn’t really need it, it will not hurt and is still likely to provide more pros
than cons. At best Dchall_san_antonio demonstrates willful ignorance, at worst
it confirms, well, use your own term.

I apologize for my response but at least I do it openly
while giving Dchall_san_antonio an opportunity to rebut, unlike attacking an
entire class of professions that know better to come close to this form, which
is a shame because they could offer a lot of real world advice.

To pnw_ff:

Thanks for your input, but I want to challenge you on a couple of things, if I may:

1. Are you in the landscaping/lawn care/equipment business? In other words, in the interest of full disclosure, do you benefit financially from core aeration? I don't mean that as a gotcha. I think it is a fair thing to know about someone who posts anonymously.

2. Many people who post here, like myself, are enthusiasts with no financial gain either way. You make what is called an "appeal to authority" by implying that we should listen to the professionals and not the internet crackpots. I would argue that there is a lot to be learned from people who are in it for the fun and interest level, and to help others out. Just because you are a professional, it doesn't necessarily follow that you know what you are doing.

3. There are many people with beautiful lawns who have never aerated (or dethatched). Don't you think it is worthwhile to find out why some people get away with not aerating, while, according to you, it is necessary for others? Isn't it possible that the people who need aeration are doing something wrong?

4. It is good advice to do your own searches for information, but you have to be VERY careful. 99% of the information on aeration comes from official looking websites that say something like "aeration introduces oxygen into the root system, etc etc." Well, if 1000 websites are saying the same thing because everybody else says it, then it is meaningless that 1000 places say it. An actual scientific study would be great, but there are also many other variables that need to be considered. For instance, golf courses and sports fields are a different animal and they do things that homeowners would never need to do. So, fine if 1000 places recommend it, but why, and what about that guy down the block with a perfect lawn who doesn't aerate? Is he doing something maybe those 1000 others can learn from, just maybe even???

See? I told you I got accused of being cynical. Now he or she is researching me to contradict what I'm saying. I feel like I'm being stalked. Now I need a shower.

I'll freely tell you that everything I learned in college about lawn care (from a land grant college in California) was wrong when put into practice. I was taught to water frequently, mow short, and fertilize early. Annual top dressing, compost, dethatching, and core aeration was taught to be important. I did all that expensive stuff and my lawns sucked for the first 40 years. I guess I was not born a lawn care fanatic. After all was said and done, my current approach (for the past 12 years) is a low hassle approach. I have a pretty good idea how the lawn care industry works because for a couple years I was the moderator of the organic lawn care forum for professionals in the industry. As far as I know my name is still on the roster there, but I haven't been active in years. All they really needed was a reorientation to the modern approach to organics, so once they got that, I left. Frankly their internal squabbling took up too much of my moderator time. 10,200 comments might be conservative or maybe that is just on GardenWeb or maybe just the past few years. I've been active on several other forums a few of which are now defunct. If you go back to 2002 you'll learn that I was dead wrong coming into these forums. I was still believed what I learned in school and from reading magazine and newspaper experts. There have been some knock down drag out discussions...where I got knocked down and drug out.

Yeah there's no shortage of educational institutions that cannot seem to duplicate the success that is seen in these wild west lawn forums. If you want Ivory Tower or other scientific support for mowing your lawn high or spraying it with shampoo, you're in the wrong forum.
What's weird to me is the surfactant studies I read a few years ago are the ones that convinced me to try using shampoo. I was not willing to take the advice of some people (who likely know who they are) simply on their word. Nor did I accept the word of the growing number of others who confirmed it worked. I think I've read one comment from someone who said they had tried shampoo and it didn't work for them. The conversation never developed to determine what their situation was or what their goal was, but I would love to discuss results with people.

Apologies to the OP on this thread. You're new to lawn care and should not have to endure a debate just get a question answered. Just because I have opinions that differ from someone else should not make your forum into his or her forum. Certainly you are free to core aerate your lawn, but I don't think there are any good reasons for you to do that in this case. Supposedly the advantage of core aeration is the allow air into the soil. You can dig a few hundred 3/4-inch holes with a core aerator. If you use a biological approach (the shampoo is basically a bio support mechanism), you'll have a few bazillion tiny holes in the soil. Seed cannot fall into the micro holes, but air and water passes in and out freely. I suspect as a newby that you had heard the term 'core aeration' or maybe someone told you you needed it to reseed. Now you have opinions on both sides. You'll find a lot of forum support for either one. If you look a little harder than PNW did, you'll find scientific support for either one. Shampoo would cost you much less than a dollar to try. Having someone come in and core aerate for you can cost anywhere up to the monthly payment for nice bass boat with a 80-hp Evinrude.

danielj_2009(6b)

This will be my last comment unless I decide to share an
interesting project in a thread I am excited about which was the reason I visited
this forum in the first place.

Another hobby I take very seriously is as a journalist. While
not my day job, I am fortunate to do it professionally at the highest level
with full access to every major professional sporting venue in the area. While
not why I am at the events, my access gives me an opportunity to talk to some
of the top agronomists in the country and pick their brain. I spent 7 days at Chambers
Bay for the US Open for example and enjoyed Eric Johnson’s challenges and the
USGA’s heavy hand.

The closest I have ever been to the industry was as a greenkeeper
during college decades ago to help pay the bills. As a journalist I fully understand
disclosure and certainly would have stated upfront any affiliation or benefit with
“the
landscaping/lawn care/equipment business? In other words, in the interest of
full disclosure, do you benefit financially from core aeration?” It is consistent
with the culture on this board though; discredit, disparage, insult and deflect
thereby never having to provide substance but always require others to do so
regardless of how many times they do. Quite frankly even suggesting such
impropriety is the biggest insult to a journalist possible. Even if I was, do
you feel that justifies rude personal attacks? When should that ever be tolerated
and why wouldn’t you stand up and say enough with the cheap shots?

The rest of your questions are a bit of a jumbled mess and
don’t make much sense to me. I don’t care if someone aerates or sprays soap, I
simply objected to the never aerate, top-dress, de-thatch, rototill ideology and
disparaging of anyone who suggested it was worthwhile to consider all options
and choose the best based on their goals, budget and time.

If you really wanted to learn something, the studies are out
there but I realize that will never happen based on your preconceived opinion
that only 1% are valid. I don’t know what you are searching for but I always
have very specific goals in mind and look for studies that directly address
them. Studies take money and it takes cash crops and University grants to fund
them so that is where you will find controlled studies, almost always requiring
peer review and replication before they are adopted in the field. If you choose
to dismiss that out of hand and determine there is nothing that could possibly
translate over to and benefit homeowners, I have no issue with that but you
might miss something.

Nor do I think everyone should adopt my personal lawn maintenance
practices just because I have a nice lawn.

I’m done with dchall_san_antonio. I had assumed he might
realize cynical is a kind word for his treatment of others and will never
provide credit and links to his claims. Always
like to see beautiful pictures of lawns though so please point me to the enlightened
results over the past 12 years.

pnw: It's hard to have a discussion when people don't provide a name. I thought for awhile about how to respond to your post, and decided to reread this entire thread before I say anything out of line. Since you are involved in the sports world (awesome hobby, by the way) let me put this to you in a way that a football player, or maybe even a coach, during a game might address you: "Dude, you're being a dick. Everybody was getting along very nicely until you came in and started throwing nasty barbs at dchall. For God's sake we're not splitting the atom here, it's just a place to talk about your freaking lawn. Chill out!"

Now, that's a literary device that I used above. I'm not trying to pick a fight. I'm trying to give you a perspective that a bystander would have if he read this thread. Dchall also used a literary device, or just call it a quip, if you will. When he talks about boat payments he knows full well that he is being heavy handed. He even predicted a response such as yours. However, I think Mark Twain would be proud of dchall. It's a funny and harmless joke that nobody (well, almost nobody) takes seriously. He is trying to make a larger point to dosstx who seemed to be under the impression that lawncare is "sun, water, mowing and aeration. So should I rent or buy..." to paraphrase.

I asked your background for the purpose of full disclosure, and to figure out why you seemed to take aeration so desperately seriously. You then proceed to agree that this is a reasonable question, before you then swerve into a strange tirade about insults and personal attacks. What's up with that?

The other 3 questions were, if I may say so, very clearly organized so I don't know why you call them a "jumbled mess." Question 2 is self-explanatory -- what's not to get? Look up "appeal to authority" in a debate if you aren't familiar with that term. (Even experts in their field have biases).

Question 3 has to do with how science works. If a hypothesis is not consistent with the observations -- and I mean ALL of them, then you have to revisit your hypothesis, as painful as that may be. If you hypothesize, for instance, that all lawns require aeration in order to grow well, but you find that there are lawns out there growing well without aeration, even just one lawn, then you have a problem. In the interest of finding the truth, isn't it more interesting to find out why some lawns are healthy without aeration? Aren't you curious about that as an interested hobbyist?

Point 4: I'm simply suggesting that most information out there is not based on any particular scientific study. If the answer were that easy, then there wouldn't be any argument about it. Nobody argues that sun and water are needed for growth. The other major stumbling block in researching this subject is that athletic fields, including golf courses, are treated very differently than home lawns and it isn't smart to just do to your home lawn whatever is done to an athletic field. Oh, and I'm fully aware of peer review (and its limitations).

As an aside, you should know from sports that it is unwise to underestimate your opponent. There are people in online forums that are equally and sometimes more qualified than the professionals (not me, however).

Anyway, it is hard to discuss this subject because I have no idea of your real level of knowledge. So, I may be talking beneath you (no insult intended), or you may be way over my head. I have a hunch, maybe, that you know lot's of guys in the professional turf world where they aerate, soap and do God know what else to their playing fields. So maybe you are taking their practices as gospel at home.

I have a feeling I'll get the "dchall treatment" from you, but even so if there is something you find interesting I encourage you to post it in the forum. I'd like to see whatever it is as well. Maybe I'll learn something! ;o)

You don't need to aerate, save your money for seed, fertilizer, and the water bill. I was in the same situation as you last year, first time home buyer, 3000 sqft, inexperienced, and followed advice from sites like Home Depot, HandyMan, BH&G, as well as general landscapers. I aerated last year and all I got out of it was weeds. This year I killed off all my grass and weeds, and replanted new seed with much better results.

For the past few months I've been applying a soil conditioner (stronger version of shampoo, you can google it) and my lawn feels bouncier/springier than ever and the soil is very easy to dig up. I can now do the screwdriver test with ease.

Aeration is good if your soil has been extremely compacted, such as by heavy machinery, but it doesn't look like you have had any trucks driving around back there. Trust me, old habits die hard, but you don't need it. If we're wrong, then next year you can start aerating. But I know you won't need to and you'll be happy you saved the money. I wish I had saved the time, effort, and the $60 I wasted last year.

dosstx,

If you're still reading. Your lawn looks pretty decent with the exception of some patchiness. This appears to be an older lawn, so tilth isn't likely to be lacking. I'm assuming that the patchiness has not recently occurred, but is chronic. In that case, the most likely causes would be lack of sunlight, chemistry or water. That fact that it is patchy and not thin or bare leads me to believe it is not a sun problem. So chemistry or water. Chemistry doesn't usually cause that type of patchy pattern, but it wouldn't hurt to get a soil test to see if there are any major deficiencies. Likely, it is water, tree feeder roots are in the top 1' of the soil. Notice that the patchiness ends beyond what appears to be the tree drip line. Trees pull a ton of water, literally. If your lawn is using one inch of water a week (not unusual during temps in the high 80's or more), the tree is using twice that amount. so you would need to be applying 3" of water a week just to replenish what is lost.

Although aeration can provide many benefits (contrary to the conclusory statements and thoughtless parroting you've been exposed to), Aeration will not cure this problem. It is possible that if there is a major nutrient deficiency, correction may strengthen the grass so that it is better able to survive the water deficiencies. Otherwise, my opinion is water.

This is like trading one sockpuppet for another, except more painful.

Are you admitting that you are dchall and danielj_2009? I had my suspicions but I appreciate your obtusely implied confirmation.

A bit of basic logic and intellect would show the error in that statement.

Oh...sorry. Well, carry on then.

I don't believe in prayer, but I do honestly wish you'd get healthy, if for no other reason so I could quit cutting you slack.

Bless your little heart.

:-)

OMG Daniel!! I usually take care of myself in these altercations, but OMG Daniel? What's left to say? "...we're not splitting the atom here..." Bwahahahahahahaha. Daniel you definitely have a way with words. I'm putting your comments in my scrapbook. I can't stop smiling. Well I was going to say that PNW's statement stands perfectly for me. Apparently the irony, sentence after sentence, was lost on him/her. Was he/she accusing me or himself/herself?

I would like to comment on peer review. I believe it is important. If I did not have peers reviewing what I talk about, I wouldn't talk about it. My peers are true peers here in the forums. None of us has a Ph.D. in lawn care. What we have is experience and the ability to communicate that experience. When the experiences start to repeat and form a consensus, you have to listen to that. Morpheuspa and I met as moderators on another forum. I was the official mod for the organic forum, but he contributed about 85% of the advice and mod management. Contrary to our hand holding on this forum, we butted heads several times on the other forum. He and I don't share similar political views, so we butted heads in the water cooler of that other forum. But I eased out of those discussions, because I did not want to escalate the tension and jeopardize the lawn care relationship. So, yardtractor, we are definitely not the same person. But we have a history of shared experiences on the other forum that might sound like we're singing from the same sheet of music. Daniel came here many months ago with a soil test post that turned into one of the longest running threads in GardenWeb history. Most of that was between him and morpheuspa, so what can I say - Daniel seems to be a good learner.

I would also like to emphasize one of pnw's points. He/she said, "Studies take money and it takes cash crops and University grants to fund
them so that is where you will find controlled studies, almost always requiring
peer review and replication before they are adopted in the field." This is precisely why you will never find the sort of advice we see in the forums coming from a university. Studies take money. Who is going to fund a study on the effects of corn on fungal disease? The National Corn Council? Who is going to fund the research on using shampoo to soften soil? The National Shampoo Council? Who is going to fund the research on deep and infrequent watering? Another problem with getting good turf research is that you need chemists, botanists, and biologists to partner in the research. I haven't read any studies in the past few years, but before that they weren't partnering like they should have. The biology of the soil was ignored. You also need one single test lab, someone like Logan Labs, to standardize the testing across all the research lest you get biases from the frailties of the university test labs.

Anyway, one more apology. Sorry, again, to dosstx for contributing to the hijack of this thread. You should be well beyond 'well informed' on this topic.

>>Contrary to our hand holding on this forum, we butted heads several times on the other forum.

We still don't see eye to eye. You have less trust in pre-emergents than I do. I'm a much faster hand with the fungicides. Alfalfa is far from my favorite organic; I strongly prefer soybean meal, whereas you have a penchant for alfalfa.

The tiniest bit of observation would show that, but we don't usually butt heads on it. The differences, while not minor, aren't worth arguing about.

>>He and I don't share similar political views, so we butted heads in the water cooler of that other forum.

And. You. Are. Still. Wrong.

:-) Kidding, of course. But no, we definitely don't.

We should also point out that, among these supposedly copious studies that loudly proclaim the advantages of aeration, none are ever offered for evaluation. All we get is "Google it yourself."

Well, I have. Studies are very mixed, and even those that are glowing tend to be too short-term to be valid.

The most glowing recommendations come from those trying to sell aeration services, and once you offer the service you're supposedly evaluating, you have by definition become a suspect source.

I still think the sandjector & ranchwerx sites are pretty convincing... Fat white roots for days!

Sorry, dryject.com

reeljake: pretty cool machine on dryject.com. However, I think more and more now the mistake that pnw made is that he talks to turf experts at golf courses and football fields, and doesn't realize those are different from "normal" lawns. In fact, the dryject website talks down the effectiveness of traditional aeration. At the end of the Golfdom article (a link on their website), the author says that the dryject machine really isn't much of an aerator. It's real benefit is to punch through the organic layer and fill the holes with sand (topdress). It's a neat machine, but why would I do this to my KBG lawn at home? Their literature doesn't even mention using this machine on anything other than a sports field. Actually, I think it does say something about "landscape areas" in addition to practice fields and golf courses, but that's all it says.

I'll go with what morpheus says. It isn't easy to find real, good research on the subject. This is why I told pnw that I thought he was underestimating the internet crackpots like us. He came in here talking about all the great research on aeration without realizing that he was just promoting advertising for aeration and not real research.

dchall - glad I could put a smile on you! I don't know why people have to practically come to blows over this stuff. I know how forums work and I'll admit I've had my own flame wars with people over the years. That's why I now try to keep things fact based. Maybe I'm kidding myself and am really just a parrot. I do try to use my science and chemical engineering background, combined with my interest in things that grow, to find out the best practices of lawn care. I feel really lucky to be associated with you guys who so freely share your knowledge. That includes you, too, yardtractor. I appreciate your point of view, which often makes me question what I've learned and makes me want to dig deeper for better understanding.

I'd sing a chorus of Kumbaya right now, but those damned lyrics are too complicated! ;o)

So, yardtractor, we are definitely not the same person.

I was responding to an insult in kind. On my visits, I've seen you posting here over at least 10-15 years and I don't recall morph posting back then so if anything, he'd would be your sockpuppet. FWIW, pnw and I are not the same person either. No worries, looks like you guys ran him off.

Mechanical processes vs chemical processes (aeration vs shampoo) has been argued ad nausea over the years here. Neither side has come close to convincing the other of the error of their ways. It's a waste of time for us. I'm sure your team will keep making your recommendation as will I (all alone again as you've run off another).

If you want to stop what is called a "flame war", quit with the peremptory attacks, I don't start nearly every other post with: "Don't shampoo!!!! Shampoo is going to water log the soil..." "Don't use organics because placing organic fertilizers on your soil is just going to create hydrophobic conditions not just on the surface, but throughout the soil" or " you don't need to bother with micro nutrients, any lab or expert will tell you..." Just say "here's what I recommend..." and leave it at that.

In the future, I'll just include this article:

http://www.noble.org/ag/soils/soilaeration/

...along with the recommendation not to aerate. Pastureland isn't grass, but it's about as close as we're going to get for formal studies...and far closer than a managed golf course.

If anybody else would actually like to quote supporting data...still never supplied...that shows long-term advantages stretching past 6 weeks for primary impact, that would certainly be appreciated.

Of course, anybody can certainly make the claim that shampoo will waterlog your soil, or any other blatant lie they'd like to spew. [Citation required], of course.

How's it going with the rapture, or is it a space ship you're waiting for? There is a thin line between delusional fanatic and outright inane. You are boring me.

I would certainly appreciate it if you would provide sourcing for your claims. This has not been forthcoming. As such, an ad hominem is your only remaining recourse. Regrettably, it displays nothing but an inherent weakness in your argument.

You can, of course, prove your point by supplying one single resource that is not an advertisement and meets the parameters established above. Show some moderate term effect in any study, range of six weeks post-aeration or greater, where the effect is not rapidly heading back toward the pre-aeration state. A standard of p<0.05 would certainly be appreciated, but I'll be happy to give appropriate weight to any given p value, including an unlisted one.

Here's another fun thread, of no scientific weight but of interesting anecdotal value and containing some good references: http://www.botanicalgarden.ubc.ca/forums/showthread.php?t=53114

morpheouspa.

Gloves down here for a moment.

What claims are you referring to that I have made about mechanical aeration?

Granted, I do claim that there are purposes for which the employment of mechanical aeration can be useful and it irritates me to no end that people peremptorily discount mechanical aeration as being without any use. (in the past couple of months, I've seen were you have suggested? that plug aeration might be an aid in pursuing some outcome.) Are you saying that I have advocated mechanical aeration as a necessary continued lawn care practice? (Do you advocate the application of a surfactant as a necessary continuing lawn care practice?)

Is it necessary to spam this site with links to hundreds of university turf programs that recommend home owner lawn aeration not only as a continuing lawn care practice, but for the prevention of disease, thatch LDS etc.? For what purpose? They are just conclusory statements, No more valid than anything you or anyone else can produce. What you linked to, rather than belittle you, look at the facts:

First some of what they call aeration is plowing (bad for me) but anyway I counted 13 studies and of those, the majority showed some improvement to crop yield, none showed a decline. They do,make a conclusory statement that aeration will cause increased weeds. OK fine. Based on what? No ancillary evidence even? Did they atleast credit dchall for the quote or maybe daniel? So even though your site actually supports that aeration results in slightly greater % crop production than non aeration, I say irrelevant and useless for any support for either of us.

This argument has been going on forever, but if you take the time to understand and observe, there are logical conclusions you can come to and when applied either work or don't. If X then Y, put it to the test, and if it repeats, then continue, whether it is surfacants, aeration, corn meal or Bayer. So recommend on your experience and give your rational when challenged. Caveat emptor.

My goal for my lawn, and for those I give advice to, is to obtain a turf that in the shortest time possible will only require mowing, watering and fertilization. I endeavor to employ the least expensive, least labor intensive, but most effective methods for a healthy turf AND soil and those are the ones I promote.

My questions were for the reader and therefor need no response from you . I will no longer joust this windmill with you or anyone else, but I will call out anyone who "make [an unsupportable} claim... or [spew} any other blatant lie"

My goal for my lawn, and for those I give advice to, is to obtain a turf that in the shortest time possible will only require mowing, watering and fertilization. I endeavor to employ the least expensive, least labor intensive, but most effective methods for a healthy turf AND soil and those are the ones I promote.

That's exactly why one shouldn't aerate. It's expensive to rent compared to spraying a "shampoo", very labor intensive, and not healthy for the soil. Leave those microbes alone!

>>s it necessary to spam this site with links to hundreds of university turf programs that recommend home owner lawn aeration not only as a continuing lawn care practice, but for the prevention of disease, thatch LDS etc.? For what purpose? They are just conclusory statements,

That's why I asked for one. One. Three would be nice, so long as they don't reference each other. Hundreds aren't what I requested and are completely unnecessary.

>>My questions were for the reader and therefor need no response from you

It's perhaps wiser to realize that an open forum invites an open response.

If you're making a claim, it's your job to provide the evidence. I can certainly claim that little blue puppies inhabit the surface of the Sun, but it would be my responsibility to prove that. Given the contradictory available information on the general hue of puppies, puppies' ability to tolerate high temperatures, and the conditions on the solar surface, the bar is set rather high for proof of that statement.

>>So recommend on your experience and give your rational when challenged. Caveat emptor.

Exactly. My experience says that aeration is effective on mechanically compressed soil. My rationale is generally clearly stated. In this instance, the value of aeration is definitely falling under "caveat emptor." And the emptor is definitely caveating, as it were, to the point of not empting.

It all depends on your soils. If you have a loam/sand soil poricity is good. Clay loam like I have it's hard as a rock. But I aerate in the spring a few months after I apply pre emergent for crab grass and grubs. And yes it's a beast if your not strong enough to handle it.. Literally it weighs a lot and touch to turn.

yardtractor said: My questions were for the reader and therefor need no response from you .
I will no longer joust this windmill with you or anyone else, but I
will call out anyone who "make [an unsupportable} claim... or [spew} any
other blatant lie"

You think we're fighting, but I think we're finally starting to communicate!

https://youtu.be/l1B1_jQnlFk?t=1m35s

Morpheus: your link is no longer pointing to evidence of aeration plugs sprouting weeds.

darktower, has morpheus seen a Logan Labs test for your soil? What you're describing sounds like it could be restored to porous and workable.