# Best Sprinkler Besides In-Ground System?



## Htwyman (Jun 14, 2021)

For the first time, I did the tuna can test to find out how much water my impact sprinkler is putting into my lawn. To my surprise, the can only collect just under a quarter inch in 60 minutes!!!!! Does that seem normal for that type of sprinkler? I can't imagine that I need to water for 4 hours every week just to get to the 1 in ch mark!

Any insight on which types of sprinklers are best? I have a mid-sized yard.


----------



## ksturfguy (Sep 25, 2018)

Probably about right. It depends how big of an area you are trying to cover with the sprinkler.

I did an audit of mine the other day and after an hour and half I had .3".


----------



## dport (Oct 13, 2019)

ksturfguy said:


> Probably about right. It depends how big of an area you are trying to cover with the sprinkler.
> 
> I did an audit of mine the other day and after an hour and half I had .3".


Yep, about the same here. With my 14k sq foot lawn it's almost pointless to try and even water existing grass. The only reason I water is when I put seed down. Outside of that, it's a waste.


----------



## PodScot (Mar 18, 2021)

I measured too and it's an insane amount of time to water my 10k properly. Pretty much given up on the back that was amazing around mother's day and is now straight up fried due to the excess heat and zero rain. We've had 1.25" of rain in the last 30 days, supposedly down 10" of rain this year already. As much as I like a nice lawn, $300 water bills aren't worth it to me.


----------



## zackroof (Oct 27, 2019)

Comforting to see others are experiencing this and feeling this way! I recent posted on another thread here some similar sentiments. It's hard to fathom when so many people are taking about putting down their weekly inch with above ground systems. I thought for sure I was doing something wrong considering how long it was taking. Even when splitting it up across days, it was still a ton of time, not to mention a PIA to fuss around with moving sprinklers and hose management. Sigh.


----------



## Overtaxed (May 9, 2021)

It's ~6000 gallons of water to lay 1" on 10,000 sq/ft. That's getting to the scale where you're going to go broke trying to get that much water down using city water. When you get to areas you're starting to measure in acres, you need to start to think like a farmer. And farmers don't use city water, they dig a pond and use big pumps. That's the only way you can consider dropping inches of water across even 1/4 of an acre for anything that approaches a reasonable cost.


----------



## Miggity (Apr 25, 2018)

I live on a creek and have a 1HP electric pump and an impact sprinkler on a tripod. I have been running the pump 8 hours a day for over a week just to keep 5900 SF green. I just ordered a few new nozzles with various orifice sizes in order to get more water on the ground faster. If I split the pump's output between two sprinklers I lose too much distance for the hassle of moving two sprinklers around.


----------



## Lawnguyland (Apr 25, 2018)

I use hunter mp rotators on spikes with 3/4" hoses and I can put down close to 3/4" of water on half of my 12k in about 8 hours (2 hours per hose 'zone'). So I water over the course of two days. My setup is similar to the one @ryanknorr built.

I'm glad I have a good amount of shade because I can water the sunny sections almost twice before I need to hit the shade.


----------



## ksturfguy (Sep 25, 2018)

When I learned I'm only doing 0.3" in 1 1/2 hours I kind of threw in the towel. Work schedule wise I dont have time to water that much and 20k sqft would be expensive. So new strategy is to focus on my 1500 sqft KBG area and other areas that are more full sun. I will hit those areas 2-3 times per week and hope for the best every where else.


----------



## Green (Dec 24, 2017)

ksturfguy said:


> When I learned I'm only doing 0.3" in 1 1/2 hours I kind of threw in the towel. Work schedule wise I dont have time to water that much and 20k sqft would be expensive. So new strategy is to focus on my 1500 sqft KBG area and other areas that are more full sun. I will hit those areas 2-3 times per week and hope for the best every where else.


Very practical approach.

When I started getting into this all about 10 years ago, everything I read talked about the roughly 1 inch per week supposed need in the absence of rain.

Now I realize not only was that a rough estimate based on specific conditions like soil structure, grass type, time of year...but it's not always necessary. There is a point at which watering deeper or more often can start giving diminishing returns (even if you're not overwatering your soil). The grass just doesn't respond much differently. If a lawn isn't being used like an athletic field, it totally makes sense to try to manage it on the dryer side and save a little water in the process.


----------



## M32075 (May 9, 2019)

My front fescue lawn is about 1000sq ft rectangle in shape I use two impact sprinklers in the corners to get almost head to head coverage on it kinda works for me considering my backyard is mostly zoysia I let mother nature handle the watering back there. Every year I consider getting a sprinkler system but talk myself out of it just another thing to maintain and really not needed with zoysia backyard covering 75% of my lawn property.


----------



## g-man (Jun 15, 2017)

Green said:


> The grass just doesn't respond much differently. If a lawn isn't being used like an athletic field, it totally makes sense to try to manage it on the dryer side and save a little water in the process.


Can you elaborate how the ET changes? I haven't read anything that suggest a lawn uses more or less water if is it an athletic field.


----------



## davegravy (Jul 25, 2019)

g-man said:


> Green said:
> 
> 
> > The grass just doesn't respond much differently. If a lawn isn't being used like an athletic field, it totally makes sense to try to manage it on the dryer side and save a little water in the process.
> ...


Maybe he means a lawn that's just under a bit of drought stress will look much better than one which is under a bit of drought stress and wear stress.


----------



## gm560 (Feb 22, 2018)

@g-man, Not sure I am understanding correctly but it seems reasonable that an athletic field would better withstand the stress of gameplay if it was well irrigated. Low traffic home lawn you might be able to get away with less water and it would recover but low water + high traffic (or some other stress) could have a detrimental compounding effect. Guessing this is what @Green is saying here.


----------



## stiffdogg06 (May 27, 2021)

Not sure if this is even possible. But could you collect water (if allowed in your state) in a rain barrel, connect some sort of pump and use that as a possible water source?


----------



## g-man (Jun 15, 2017)

@stiffdogg06 620 gallons of water to get 1in into 1000sqft. You will need a lot of rain and a very large tank.


----------



## stiffdogg06 (May 27, 2021)

g-man said:


> @stiffdogg06 620 gallons of water to get 1in into 1000sqft. You will need a lot of rain and a very large tank.


HAHA. Thanks. I am pretty new to lawn care (bought my first house a few months), so wasn't quite sure how much water it took.


----------



## g-man (Jun 15, 2017)

It is a lot of water. For perspective, a whisky barrel is 53gallons, so you will need 11-12 barrels full just for 1ksqft. Most lawns actually need around 1.5in of water per week in the peak of summer.


----------



## M32075 (May 9, 2019)

That's a lot of whiskey &#128514;


----------



## LawnSolo (Jul 17, 2018)

Something I never understood about the Tuna can measures is that even though it takes long time to get .5" of water it doesn't translate with the water run off I see on concrete. Even adjusting the sprinkler heads if you don't pay attention you get soaked from the one at the distance.

So I feel the measuring system should not be taken too serious. Perhaps a wider container will be a more fair way to measure the water.

Few days ago we had some good rain and just for fun I used few rain gages that I had and it marked .5" of water. There is no way it was even close to accurate. There was at least 2" of water.

I understand that experts measure the water that way but in my view it doesn't translate with what I see on my grass. Maybe a bucket would be a better way to measure the water? I feel dumb :bd:


----------



## SodFace (Jul 17, 2020)

Takes me 2hours to put down .5in of water with an impact or orbit h2o(gear drive) sprinkler on 360° setting. Then subtract time for 180°, 90°, etc. I invested a small amount in a simple scheduled timer for my front and back spigots. Now I can drag the hoses out before sundown and maybe test the sprinkler for a minute and then scheduled them to start at 4 or 5am. Then I can put the hoses away when I'm leaving for work(or just leave them til I get home).


----------



## JerseyGreens (Aug 30, 2019)

LawnSolo said:


> Something I never understood about the Tuna can measures is that even though it takes long time to get .5" of water it doesn't translate with the water run off I see on concrete. Even adjusting the sprinkler heads if you don't pay attention you get soaked from the one at the distance.
> 
> So I feel the measuring system should not be taken too serious. Perhaps a wider container will be a more fair way to measure the water.
> 
> ...


my two cents - water runoff accumulates in puddles which makes it seem like you are putting down a ton.

Sprinkler heads are shooting water from ground-level into the air, back down to the ground. They obviously aren't as efficient as mother nature is with rainfall.

Here is what I used with a decent level of success (no heat damage to lawn...knock on wood...and following the ET guide).

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B005C5OP8G/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o00_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1


----------



## g-man (Jun 15, 2017)

LawnSolo said:


> Something I never understood about the Tuna can measures is that even though it takes long time to get .5" of water it doesn't translate with the water run off I see on concrete. Even adjusting the sprinkler heads if you don't pay attention you get soaked from the one at the distance.
> 
> So I feel the measuring system should not be taken too serious. Perhaps a wider container will be a more fair way to measure the water.
> 
> ...


You can use a bucket or a kids pool. The rate of water falling over an area is what we are trying to measure (how long it takes to get X inches in YZ area). Runoff or spraying the concrete is a different issue (water not going into the soil fast enough), but we are still trying first measure the rate of water falling (rain or irrigation).


----------



## LawnSolo (Jul 17, 2018)

g-man said:


> LawnSolo said:
> 
> 
> > Something I never understood about the Tuna can measures is that even though it takes long time to get .5" of water it doesn't translate with the water run off I see on concrete. Even adjusting the sprinkler heads if you don't pay attention you get soaked from the one at the distance.
> ...


Oh Boy! I got myself in a big mess 

I still feel the measure system is very inaccurate. It seems to force you into wasting more water than needed but I'm just an Internet guy :mrgreen:


----------



## g-man (Jun 15, 2017)

It is pretty industry standard approach. https://www.weather.gov/iwx/coop_8inch A tuna can is around 4in, but it is still a fairly accurate approach.

How getting a measurement of what you apply leads to forcing wasting more water? What approach do you take to know how much water did you apply or how much rain it was (eg. 2in)?


----------



## LawnSolo (Jul 17, 2018)

@g-man I got into the Rabbit hole didn't I? 

I'm wondering if placing more than one container or tuna can around the area we are trying to measure is a better approach. Calculate the average and go with that number.

The pattern of the water coming from the sprinkler head it's just not even distributed IMO.


----------



## gm560 (Feb 22, 2018)

LawnSolo said:


> I'm wondering if placing more than one container or tuna can around the area we are trying to measure is a better approach. Calculate the average and go with that number.


Yes I think this is a good idea. You can average them out, within reason. if one cup is empty, you likely have a problem. Along that line, multiple cups also could determine where there may be dry spots so you can correct it. For example an obstruction or not level nozzle.



LawnSolo said:


> The pattern of the water coming from the sprinkler head it's just not even distributed IMO.


Also correct. Some types of sprinklers are better than others. But this is why head to head coverage is encouraged across the board.

Check this out. Start at 3:35 if the link didnt grab it properly.


----------



## LawnSolo (Jul 17, 2018)

@gm560 This is awesome - Thank You!


----------



## Fraust (Apr 4, 2021)

LawnSolo said:


> I'm wondering if placing more than one container or tuna can around the area we are trying to measure is a better approach.


This has always been my approach FWIW.


----------



## SodFace (Jul 17, 2020)

Yea I have about 6 tuna cans total. I use none sometimes or if I try a new placement Ill distribute 2-6 and see what happens.


----------



## LawnSolo (Jul 17, 2018)

I need some volunteers to eat 6 cans of tuna. Or I might have to rent a cat &#128514;


----------



## M32075 (May 9, 2019)

LawnSolo said:


> I need some volunteers to eat 6 cans of tuna. Or I might have to rent a cat 😂


Rent a cat 😂


----------



## NELawn (May 7, 2019)

Just like the other poster I have a bucket full of these.....

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B005C5OP8G/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o00_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1&tag=lawnforum-20

Every few years I do a 20minute test, put all the gauges out. Water for 20 minutes, take a reading, then figure out how long it will take for the gauge with the least amount of water to get to 1". Then i use that duration for the whole lawn, although I usually water a 1/2" so I cut that number in half.

In some cases you might figure out your wasting a lot of water to get that one deja spot to an 1", in that case you just hand water it. I do that along a patio, it saves me about an hours worth of water because I putting it just where the sprinkler missed.

These are also really nice to have because you figure out where you have spots that aren't getting water. The biggest eye opener came when I put these out before a hard rain in some problem areas under trees.

I discovered while the open areas got an 1"++ of rain, the shade areas under tress got barely a 1/2". Which meant I had to water the shadier areas as much as the sunny areas, because the rain doesn't get to the whole lawn evenly. Once i started watering the grass under the tree separately, the grass started doing much better.


----------



## Green (Dec 24, 2017)

gm560 said:


> @g-man, Not sure I am understanding correctly but it seems reasonable that an athletic field would better withstand the stress of gameplay if it was well irrigated. Low traffic home lawn you might be able to get away with less water and it would recover but low water + high traffic (or some other stress) could have a detrimental compounding effect. Guessing this is what @Green is saying here.


A lot of lawns don't get any supplemental irrigation, and still look fine generally, even when it gets dry and rain is not meeting ET demands. This might go on for several consecutive weeks with no rain, and it looks ok. Or it can be sporadic if it rains here and there over a longer period. Both cases yield irrigation deficits according to the math.

Bottom line, you don't always need to replace 100% of water lost to ET. You can often cheat a bit and water less than the full amount lost to ET...particularly if you have Tall Fescue and/or fine Fescue. These grasses do ok when under slight drought stress. But if the lawn (or field) gets heavy traffic, this is probably not going to work. Hence the (practical) difference between a lawn and an athletic field.

Since there is a move to conserve water lately overall, this is not a bad move...as long as you water deeply enough for the water to soak in and get down to the roots, and often enough that the deficit doesn't spiral out of control and compound over time (which would cause dormancy).

You can use the ET calculations to figure out how to do this. Then try it, and observe the results. Adjust accordingly. Probably not a good idea with a new lawn, either, but an established one can handle some degree of deficit irrigation. If you're in charge of an athletic field, you probably will want to minimize any deficit to the minimum (i.e. 0), otherwise your job might be on the line (unless your organization feels the pressure of water restrictions).

Another reason (other than traffic stress) this may work better in a lawn is organic matter content. But now we're getting off into the muck (no pun intended)...or is it the weeds?

Personally, with the above said and as someone who also battles Poa, I'd take a slightly dry lawn over a slightly wet lawn any day. But I'm coming from the background of someone who dragged hoses for about 10 years, and who believes in some degree of landscape water conservation even before drought occurs. Bottom line, I water regularly, but I still do it as little as possible. Others may wish to replace 100% of ET during the hot, dry Summer. To each their own.


----------



## thebmrust (Jun 29, 2020)

Back to the OP... "best" probably isn't the right word, but "better" might be. Or at least "alternative".

My thought:
Sub surface drip tape.

There are two different types that I know of. It's actual thin/flat porous material that applies water UNDER the turf in the root zone. Farmers use it. It caught on in parts of California and Las Vegas.

I have seen the line version (underground hose with holes) and I thought I have seen a reference to a mesh version. It lays down like a carpet grid. In either case, I don't know if it can be applied as a retrofit or early in a new lawn or a full renovation. Near zero evaporation no run off with a constant flow of low pressure water. Theoretically, significantly less water too.


----------

