# Testing Carbon X



## JohnP (Oct 24, 2017)

I'm a firm believer in the individual components of Carbon X and think the sciency way that Matt Martin has them put together will at the least: *Make my life easier and support a rad dude*; and at the most *help me take my lawn to the next level*. Carbon X certainly isn't a bag of Miracle Prills but it will be far better than doing each of the components separately. That's why I'm doing only Carbon X fert on my property for 2019. I'm already in.

So after a lengthy discussion both here and on the Discord I had an idea to rent some plots from my cousin who has an acre and a half of turf and do some of our own testing. Each plot will be a 10'x10' section. @osuturfman suggested a 6" buffer between.

I will purchase the Carbon X and anything else needed. I will purchase the periodic testing through Midwest Labs. I will record, document, post pictures, etc...

We will check in on the plots throughout 2019 and then again in 2020 we can look back on them. I will do it for as long as my cousin is cool with me getting on his land. I'm going to tag the 3 brains I've picked about this so far and if we need to add another plot maybe I can convince him to give me a little more land, but I'm open to feedback on what people would like to see. Let's try to keep this thread to just this testing and what we want out of it and maybe we can leave specific Carbon X talk in other areas? The other thread got pretty long pretty quick!

I think this would be a lot of fun and would be interesting to see what it all looks like in 2020.


*Control:* No Fert

*Carbon X:* Bag Rate

@g-man Plot (Same N-P-K ratio of CX...24-0-4...nothing else...)

@Ridgerunner Plot

@osuturfman Plot

Milorganite Only Plot

GCF Liquid Program Plot


----------



## jonthepain (May 5, 2018)

Looking forward to it. Well done.


----------



## Scagfreedom48z+ (Oct 6, 2018)

+1. Thanks for doing this. I'm strongly considering Carbon X for 2019 so this will certainly help my decision. I'll be tuning in on your progress


----------



## JohnP (Oct 24, 2017)

Soil testing will be done through Midwest Labs, they offer a *Soil Health Complete* test which includes their *S3C*. The S3C includes S1A, S2N and S3. Good lord. Will confirm everything that comes with it for sure but here's the info:


----------



## JohnP (Oct 24, 2017)

Yo mate what up?! Welcome to another *RESERVED*.


----------



## JohnP (Oct 24, 2017)

Cousin has a dog that poops. Random uncontrollable variable. RESERVED.


----------



## MassHole (Jun 27, 2018)

Thanks for doing this. Anxious to see the other test plots. Wish one was Milorganite/ Ringer with synthetics for pre emergent and grubs control.


----------



## JohnP (Oct 24, 2017)

@MassHole I'm down for a Milo plot. I think that'd be a good comparison.

Now as far as grub, I need to be careful about pest control because he has honeybees. I think acelepryn is okay but I'd rather avoid anything like that since it's not my property.


----------



## osuturfman (Aug 12, 2017)

A few points on bee and pollinator safety, in general:

1.) The first line of defense is good weed control. Without flowering weeds, the likelihood of bees and other pollinators being exposed to recently sprayed insecticides at levels high enough to cause harm. If weeds are an issue, do not apply when they are flowering.

2.) Choosing a low-risk insecticide, like Acelepryn, comes with a slightly higher cost but, a significantly wider margin of safety for humans, pollinators, and the environment at-large.

3.) If there the area isn't irrigated, apply ahead of imminent rain and limit the amount of time spray residue stays on the leaf blades. If the area is irrigated, water in the product immediately after application.

All of these tactics are considered best practices for interactions between turf and pollinators.


----------



## MassHole (Jun 27, 2018)

JohnP said:


> @MassHole I'm down for a Milo plot. I think that'd be a good comparison.
> 
> Now as far as grub, I need to be careful about pest control because he has honeybees. I think acelepryn is okay but I'd rather avoid anything like that since it's not my property.


I am really looking forward to the results. I would be willing to donate if you are looking for funds to help with this test to offset the cost of materials. Please let me know.


----------



## JohnP (Oct 24, 2017)

MassHole said:


> JohnP said:
> 
> 
> > @MassHole I'm down for a Milo plot. I think that'd be a good comparison.
> ...


Thanks for the offer! As of right now I'd rather you buy some TLF Merch or nab a shirt or something from your favorite YouTube creator. Maybe throw a few cans at a food bank or something in your area. I can totally handle what's needed for this.


----------



## MassHole (Jun 27, 2018)

JohnP said:


> Thanks for the offer! As of right now I'd rather you buy some TLF Merch or nab a shirt or something from your favorite YouTube creator. Maybe throw a few cans at a food bank or something in your area. I can totally handle what's needed for this.


Done.

Thanks again for doing this! If you need any help with data collection or organization, please message me!


----------



## NewLawnJon (Aug 3, 2018)

I would be interested in seeing a Carbon-X granular RGS vs Liquid RGS plot to see how much the foliar vs root zone application affects the roots.


----------



## iFisch3224 (Jun 11, 2018)

NewLawnJon said:


> I would be interested in seeing a Carbon-X granular RGS vs Liquid RGS plot to see how much the foliar vs root zone application affects the roots.


+1 absolutely. Maybe a +`1 on a milo plot as well. Though they arent' the same products, it would be nice to see maybe a CarbonX + Milo plot vs just CarbonX.

Definitely, think a couple more plots would be nice.

I think it was mentioned but never asked - is irrigation something you have access to?

Any pictures of the lot(s)?

What kind of turf will you be applying to?

I'm not familiar with the tests you listed, but in addition to soil biology/microbes (I think you mentioned this test in the other thread) does this test also cover N-P-K testing as well?

I'm curious if CarbonX does actually help/hold onto N-P-K nutrients (ie reduce N-P-K usage) over the course of the year and maintain said nutrients [I wonder if that makes sense]. One of the claims/science behind it, is to reduce nutrients and I'm curious if this is true. I'm already a believer in less is more AND less more frequently, and I have seen total application costs go down over the course of this year.

I will also be doing my own little "review" of CarbonX as I plan on purchasing when it's released to DIY (or if I can pick up locally [about 30 miles away]. And will probably be able to get it down in Jan/Fed depending on temps. 10-day forecast still has us in the upper 70's, low 80's, into December, so if the weather holds true through the "winter" grass should still be going and growing well into Jan/Feb.

Furthermore, I have new soil (2 year old ground) and would be curious how this improves/grows soil biology/microbe activity if at all.


----------



## Ridgerunner (May 16, 2017)

@osuturfman What's your opinion of the Haney vs the standard saturated paste test? In your opinion would one be better than the other in monitoring soil solution nutrient values? For that matter, would an M3 be equally as useful in monitoring changes in soil nutrient levels? Are there differences between which nutrients are tested/reported via saturated tests done by different labs or do all saturated tests test/report primary, secondary and trace nutrient levels? Do saturated paste tests commonly report NH4 and NO3 values? If so, what would be the recommended procedure for employing that particular test to best insure useful data collection (scheduling of sampling and testing)?
Then, would you mind explaining the unified theory of relativity?  
Thanks


----------



## g-man (Jun 15, 2017)

@Ridgerunner since you mentioned the theory of relativity, https://www.livescience.com/64191-einstein-graviton-live-science.html


----------



## Suburban Jungle Life (Mar 1, 2018)

g-man said:


> @Ridgerunner since you mentioned the theory of relativity, https://www.livescience.com/64191-einstein-graviton-live-science.html


Good to know gravity still work like we think!


----------



## JohnP (Oct 24, 2017)

iFisch3224 said:


> NewLawnJon said:
> 
> 
> > I would be interested in seeing a Carbon-X granular RGS vs Liquid RGS plot to see how much the foliar vs root zone application affects the roots.
> ...


I bet I can squeeze a few more out of him.



iFisch3224 said:


> I think it was mentioned but never asked - is irrigation something you have access to?


I have plenty of hoses but I don't know how far we would be from a connection. I also have extra Orbit 360 heads from my upgrades at home and would pry throw a Melnor RainCloud on it.



iFisch3224 said:


> Any pictures of the lot(s)?


Not yet but definitely to come.



iFisch3224 said:


> What kind of turf will you be applying to?


He has a mix of KBG and TTTF.



iFisch3224 said:


> I'm not familiar with the tests you listed, but in addition to soil biology/microbes (I think you mentioned this test in the other thread) does this test also cover N-P-K testing as well?
> 
> I'm curious if CarbonX does actually help/hold onto N-P-K nutrients (ie reduce N-P-K usage) over the course of the year and maintain said nutrients [I wonder if that makes sense]. One of the claims/science behind it, is to reduce nutrients and I'm curious if this is true. I'm already a believer in less is more AND less more frequently, and I have seen total application costs go down over the course of this year.[/i]


@Ridgerunner is the one that had me ask for some specific biology type testing, but it includes the S3C (S3 Complete) which is a complete analysis. More details on all the types of Soil Testing Midwest Labs does here.



iFisch3224 said:


> I will also be doing my own little "review" of CarbonX as I plan on purchasing when it's released to DIY (or if I can pick up locally [about 30 miles away]. And will probably be able to get it down in Jan/Fed depending on temps. 10-day forecast still has us in the upper 70's, low 80's, into December, so if the weather holds true through the "winter" grass should still be going and growing well into Jan/Feb.
> 
> Furthermore, I have new soil (2 year old ground) and would be curious how this improves/grows soil biology/microbe activity if at all.


Nice! I'm in Iowa so this will all be cool season testing, will be interesting to see it compared. I won't be able to apply for a couple more months!


----------



## iFisch3224 (Jun 11, 2018)

Interesting, thanks for the link. Have to line up a test in late Feb/March.


----------



## Ridgerunner (May 16, 2017)

@g-man :lol: 
@JohnP 


> it includes the S3C (S3 Complete) which is a complete analysis


I didn't catch that. That's a value added. Rather than employing saturated paste testing, I expect it will be possible to distinguish those Haney values that are tested current nutrient levels from those which are projections. @osuturfman is too much the diplomat to opine without solid research to support it. Wise man.


----------



## osuturfman (Aug 12, 2017)

The S3C test looks like a great bang for the buck.

I'm going to think about the plots today and how it might be best to set up a simple experiment. Next week is our statewide turf conference here in Columbus. I was also going to ask a couple of academics I know about how to create an objective, no-frills protocol to test CX against other products and a control. I'll report back soon.

On the Haney and other soil health tests: The CO2 burst test is really the best thing we have available to measure and compare the level of microbial activity in the soil. That said, I think the Haney can be beneficial data for this experiment. With respect to release of soil nutrients and N, these tests just aren't there yet to reliably predict mineralization. Also, I would eschew saturated paste tastes in favor Melich III.

From a testing standpoint, the Soil Health Complete at the beginning, middle, and end of the 2019 season would be perfect. There are plenty of ways to go overboard on this one but, the testing listed above should provide meaningful results for this experiment.


----------



## Ridgerunner (May 16, 2017)

osuturfman said:


> The S3C test looks like a great bang for the buck.
> 
> I'm going to think about the plots today and how it might be best to set up a simple experiment. Next week is our statewide turf conference here in Columbus. I was also going to ask a couple of academics I know about how to create an objective, no-frills protocol to test CX against other products and a control. I'll report back soon.
> 
> ...


I look forward to your insights after you consult w/academia
Thanks for the follow-up.
:thumbup:



> With respect to release of soil nutrients and N, these tests just aren't there yet to reliably predict mineralization.


I stand corrected, You will occasionally walk out on the limb.


----------



## osuturfman (Aug 12, 2017)

> I stand corrected, You will occasionally walk out on the limb.


I usually try to keep three points of contact at all times when climbing but, sometimes I'll go down to two. I really do need to study these new methods more and consult my network of people on that side of the industry. Like most things in turf, there is just so much we don't yet understand and it will take a lot of time to get there given our spot in the pecking order. While the destination is unknown, it's sure to be a hell of a ride. :nod:


----------



## ATLawn (May 25, 2017)

Did we ever get any results here? Would love to see some follow-up data analysis!


----------

