Looks similar to Cascade Plus. Rather than spending $30 per quart we have been using shampoo for years. You can get a pint in your favorite fragrance for a dollar at Dollar Tree. One application at 3 ounces per 1,000 square feet should work for several years. I sprayed mine in 2012 and it still gets soft when it's watered or rained on. It really does work better than core aeration.

dc what brand of shampoo do you use?

Thanks

I used generic baby shampoo (Equate). Others have used Alberto VO5 and others. What is important is that you can see through the shampoo. Cloudy shampoos have conditioners in them that don't help the wetting process.

"Wetting agents can do a lot of things, but one thing they can’t do, at least alone, is alleviate soil compaction."

Fortunately the average homeowner never experiences true compaction like a golf course or football field might. Soils get hard from damage to the population of beneficial microbes, principally fungi. I believe the effect of the shampoo or surfactant is to allow water to penetrate more deeply into the soil where the soil temperature is cooler. Cooler soils evaporate less and tend to hold their moisture longer. This sets up an ideal environment to rebuild the population of beneficial fungi. From that point it is a matter of continued deep watering to maintain the fungal population. What you will see/feel is the soil will become hard when it dries out. As soon as it gets some deep watering, the soil surface will become soft again. My soil in San Antonio became so soft after a rainstorm that my ankles wobbled when I walked. It was dramatically softer. And like I mentioned earlier, I applied it in 2012 and the softness effect continues.

dchall,

With all due respect.

>>>"I believe..."

Forget your religious approach and read the articles and results of the research/studies, then you'll KNOW how surfactants work and what the commercial ones vs shampoos can and can't do. BTW, what is "true compaction"? The average homeowner never experiences it? You been walking around poking a penetrometer into homeowners' yards? You teach people to use the "jar test," why not teach them how to do a soil compaction test?

True compaction results from the mechanical removal of air gaps, pockets, channels, bubbles, etc., from the soil. Adobe bricks are an example of compacted soil. They are made by mixing soil and grass or straw with plenty of water. Then they stir or agitate the brick boxes to drive out the air. In nature that same thing happens at the apron of a livestock tank or pond where animals are allowed to walk in freely. It can also happen during a football game on rain soggy fields or in the non sandy parts of golf courses when the let the players on too soon after watering or rain. It can happen when you park a car on the lawn in the same place day after day rain or shine. It can happen when a car or truck drives off the paved or stabilized part of a road onto soggy soil. The key thing is the soil has to be soggy. When the heavy load squeezes the air out of the soil the places where the air was become filled with water. The soil is compacted because it has no air and no place for air to penetrate.

The statement of my belief is more of a hypothesis. Sadly, as demonstrated in the academic links you provided, they can't reproduce compacted soil, or even hard soil, in the laboratory. I have serious issues with soil science and the way research is conducted. I would much rather go with the repeated anecdotes of farmers and ranchers than the inconclusive science coming out of the land grant universities. Sure there are some crackpot ideas coming from the hinterlands, but I see crackpot ideas coming from universities, too. What I would like to see is a university test my hypothesis that it is the surfactant induced, deeper water penetration, cooling effect, and re-population of beneficial fungi that results in long term softness and even soil structure. I don't think there will ever be a peer reviewed, randomized, placebo controlled, double blind test, because there are far too many factors to consider.

Did you read the links you posted? Because you seem to believe there was a conclusion somewhere. Did you notice at the end of the papers they had lots of info but no conclusions? After decades of research with mystical machines (duplicating what a screwdriver does), DECADES, and they still can't tell you which surfactant works for you. With that in mind, my belief in a biological element to soil softness is as good as yours. The jar test isn't perfect, and neither is the screwdriver test; but they are easy to administer and give some qualitative information about the soil.

Did you read the links you posted?

By chance, it so happens that I have read them.

My takeaway is that commercial wetting agents can provide benefits that are related to soil moisture. That they can aid in both soil drainage (helping to prevent water logging) and in keeping the soil moist for longer periods by dispersing existing soil moisture through the soil and aiding in pulling moisture up from lower levels (reducing watering regimes). The newer formulations can do this with reduced chance of micro-nutrient toxicity and their effects are long lasting which might make them cost effective. Another takeaway was that SLS was used as an AI in the early years of wetting agent development, but was abandoned, among other reasons (toxicity?), due to its short period (days) of effectiveness.

No sense having another debate over compaction. You have competently described what it is, but you refuse/deny or are misinformed regarding what causes it. As little as 4 psi of surface soil pressure can create soil compaction depending on soil moisture levels. Any idea how much weight psi you apply to your soil every time you walk on it, leave alone run a spreader full of fertilizer or a lawn tractor on it or just the weight of pooled water and the saturated top couple of inches of soil on the soil below it?

A screw drive test might be useful for determining the depth that soil has been watered, but I doubt many people have a sense of touch so sensitive that they could tell the difference in bulk/particle density between un-compacted soil and compacted soil.

http://soilquality.org.au/factsheets/bulk-density-measurement

I knew you had read them. I just wanted to emphasize a different point that I took away from the articles - the idea that there was no conclusion as to what we should use. It depends on our soil.

Interesting that anionic SLS was abandoned by the professionals yet we amateurs use it practically exclusively in the shampoo products. They say it "May be toxic to some plants." That's a pretty flimsy reason to abandon it. We get good and long lasting results without the grass dying. Are we doing something different?

4 psi is an interesting number. That is about the pressure applied to the foot of a 100 pound human AND a 1,200 pound steer. Of course a steer always has 2 feet on the ground so you have to double the square inches of hoof. So yes, anyone can cause compaction if the soil is wet enough. I guess my advice would be to not go walking around in mud. Don't play football on your lawn or even mow after it rains or after you irrigate.

Here's something that seems counter intuitive to me. Maybe you can explain it better. This is from Bulk Density on Farm Use.

Bulk density increases with compaction and tends to increase with depth.
Fine textured soils (high in silt and clay) tend to be less dense than
sands, particularly if the size distribution of the sands is such that
the gaps between larger particles are filled with smaller particles
(Marshall and Holmes, 1992). As bulk density increases, resistance to
roots increases and the amount of water available to crops decreases
(see Subsurface Compaction fact sheet). Permeability of the soil also decreases and crops are more susceptible to waterlogging (see Waterlogging fact sheet).

That says sand is more dense and resists the infiltration of water causing water logging. Why does it seem like water flows right through sand? And why does it seem like roots grow right into sand? Does the bulk density test not tell the entire story?

Here's something that seems counter intuitive to me. Maybe you can explain it better. This is from Bulk Density on Farm Use.

Bulk density increases with compaction and tends to increase with depth.
Fine textured soils (high in silt and clay) tend to be less dense than
sands, particularly if the size distribution of the sands is such that
the gaps between larger particles are filled with smaller particles
(Marshall and Holmes, 1992). As bulk density increases, resistance to
roots increases and the amount of water available to crops decreases
(see Subsurface Compaction fact sheet). Permeability of the soil also decreases and crops are more susceptible to waterlogging (see Waterlogging fact sheet).

Excellent citation. Very accurate, except it's missing some details. Without those details, I, like you, was a bit confused.

That says sand is more dense and resists the infiltration of water
causing water logging. Why does it seem like water flows right through
sand?

I don't quite come to the same conclusion. I don't have citations on hand, but my understanding: Compaction will reduce permeability in all soil types, but sands should always be more permeable than finer soils as the gaps/spaces between particles are larger even when compacted. More space between particles reduces the effect of water tension allowing the water to move through the spaces with less resistance. Conversely, less space increases the effects of water tension with the soil particles and slows the movement of water and more likelihood of waterlogging.. One of the advantages of a wetting agent is the reduction of water surface tension allowing water to move easier into and through smaller spaces. (as an aside: reduced surface tension aids in allowing water to remain as a "film" on soil particles and a source of moisture) However, if the gaps are plugged with finer soil particles (it's the reason it is not advisable to add a finer textured (clay) soil on top of sand soils) then downward flow of water (drainage) is reduced. Water backs up and the soil above gets waterlogged, Sand vs Silt vs clay; it's all relative.

And why does it seem like roots grow right into sand?

Larger Spaces= less resistance for the most part. Studies have found resistance levels (bulk density) at which root growth/movement his severely impaired. Once again sand vs silt vs clay; it's all relative.

Also, higher OM (read roots) content soils are much more resistant to compaction. Mother nature mechanically aerates soil primarily through freeze/thaw cycles, creating cracks and spaces in the soil, allowing for greater root growth resulting in even more reduced soil bulk density. Warning:), My personal opinion: In an uncompacted soil, a surfactant/wetting agent -wetter soils- can help reduce soil resistance to root growth, but that at some level of soil bulk density/soil compaction, wetting agents are not sufficient to overcome the resistance to root growth and a mechanical method is required.

Does the
bulk density test not tell the entire story?

As I mentioned before, that quote is missing a few details. Adverse bulk density levels vary by soil type. The 1.6 bulk density threshold is misleading:

See chart on page two. https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_053256.pdf Hope that link helps fill in the missing pieces?

I have seen much more detailed charts that have individual detrimental bulk level densities for Coarse Sands, Fine Sands, Silty Sands, Clay sands, Loamy sands, etc up through clay.

I forgot to address this:

Interesting that anionic SLS was abandoned by the professionals yet we
amateurs use it practically exclusively in the shampoo products. They
say it "May be toxic to some plants." That's a pretty flimsy reason to
abandon it. We get good and long lasting results without the grass
dying. Are we doing something different?

Setting aside any concerns regarding toxicity, The major reason that SLS was abandoned appears to be its short term effectiveness. Pursuant to the links I sited (and other reported studies), the major reason for employing wetting agents is the aforementioned ability to regulate soil moisture (improved drainage to prevent over saturation and improved ability of the soil to wick and distribute water from lower or wetter areas to dryer areas resulting in improved soil moisture content and less irrigation. This evidently has been a major goal in developing commercial wetting agent. That, and longevity of that effect.

I wonder if it's not like the "Hold my beer and watch this" guy who proceeds to fit his head between the rungs of a porch rail. My response is always: "Ok, now how are you going to get your head back out?" SLS may be great at getting water into all the smallest soil spaces and making the soil wetter, but once the effect wears off in a few days, how does the water get wicked back out? Maybe I'm wrong, but the major reason for commercial wetting agent formulations is for water regulation and long term effect and both need to go hand-in-hand for the desired result. It seems to me that If SLS did that for any useful period of time, it would be the much less expensive agent of choice.

EDIT: P.S. dchall, if shampoo is doing what you want and isn't causing you any problems...if it works for you, go for it.