# Mulching vs Bagging



## OutdoorEnvy (Sep 27, 2017)

Will mulching help a lawn that needs to fill in and thicken up better than bagging? This would be with all things equal as far as watering and fertilizing.

I prefer to bag as I like the clean lawn from bagging and the less mess of clippings being tracked in the house from kids and myself playing outside. I have no problem feeding the lawn extra fertilizer treatments so I'm not interested in mulching to save money on buying less fertilizer, not buying bags, etc. I am wanting to help my lawn thicken up and help with the soil staying softer and if mulching would help this I would do it until it fills in to my liking and then go back to bagging. I will fertilize and water as often as needed to help it thicken up. I'm just wanting to know if mulching will speed it up.

Thoughts?


----------



## Mightyquinn (Jan 31, 2017)

No, I don't think it makes a difference either way.

I'm also a fan of collecting the clippings now too! It just gives the lawn a cleaner look and you don't have to deal with all those clippings. I also want to limit the amount of OM I'm putting back into the lawn too as I think it has created more problems in my lawn then it has helped. Also mowing reely (I know what I did there ) low makes collecting the clippings even more important as there is less space for the clippings to "fall down into".


----------



## Ware (Jan 28, 2017)

There are valid arguments on both sides of this, but I tend to catch my clippings if I anticipate generating a fair amount of them. Sometimes I don't catch if I'm ahead of the mowing curve, but I would say more often than not I do. I'm like you in that I prefer less clippings on the lawn and I'm not overly concerned about the cost associated with any loss of nutrients. Additionally, I'm not interested in generating extra OM for my bermuda lawn.

If you understand the pros/cons (sounds like you do) and you are doing everything else right, I don't think mulching versus bagging will have a significant impact on the health of your bermuda.


----------



## Redtenchu (Jan 28, 2017)

You'll see greater effect from mowing low and often. Scalp on the lowest setting soon, then raise your Honda up one notch and maintain as long as possible, then raise as needed. Try your best to keep the grass under 2inches and you'll be amazed how much thicker it will get.

Incorporate a PGR if you find it difficult to mow more than twice a week.


----------



## OutdoorEnvy (Sep 27, 2017)

Thanks guys. Yeah I scalped at .75" this past weekend and will plan to maintain it at 1.25". I'll mow as often as needed to keep it there.


----------



## wardconnor (Mar 25, 2017)

Another vote for bagging.


----------



## desirous (Dec 15, 2017)

Cool season guy here, sorry if intruding... I tend to agree that bagging vs. mulching should make no difference to thickening the lawn. However, @Mightyquinn and @Ware, why are you avoiding extra OM? That's contrary to everything I thought I had learned about soil and grass...


----------



## gijoe4500 (Mar 17, 2017)

@desirous with bermuda, OM isn't anywhere near as important as it can be with other grasses. Heck, Bermuda will grow on top of concrete if you let it. With mowing reely low, having the clippings laying on the lawn looks bad. With grass 0.5" and shorter, the clippings have no where to fall to, and merely sit on top of the remaining grass.


----------



## Mightyquinn (Jan 31, 2017)

I think the whole OM thing is overrated and isn't as crucial as some want you to believe. I think it's been proven here on TLF that you can have a great lawn without having to add tons of OM. I look at like this, if OM is such a great thing then why don't you see golf courses and major sports fields adding it?


----------



## Spammage (Apr 30, 2017)

Mightyquinn said:


> I think the whole OM thing is overrated and isn't as crucial as some want you to believe. I think it's been proven here on TLF that you can have a great lawn without having to add tons of OM. I look at like this, if OM is such a great thing then why don't you see golf courses and major sports fields adding it?


I think the question is answered by what you want from your lawn. Golf courses and sports fields are maintained for a purpose and will encourage playability, fast drainage, etc over lower inputs. I don't think anyone could argue that sandy soil could benefit from additional water holding capacity, as clay soil could benefit from better tilth and drainage. All of this would help to grow better turfgrass with lower water, fertilizer and other inputs.

I'm not trying to fault you for not wanting a "softer" lawn. I wish I could trade soils with just about anyone on here. Heavy rain used to turn my soil into slick, snotty slop that couldn't even be walked on without tracking and ultimately compaction. After a few years of adding organic material, I can walk on the lawn and even mow the same day or at worst the next day. I can even dig a hole and find amazing rich soil where it used to just be sticky clay.

The majority of homeowners who want a nice lawn will still keep it at 2"+, mow it with a rotary once a week or less, irrigate daily or every other day, etc, and could benefit from additional organic matter in the soil. Most of the warm season folks on here are viewed as crazy by the neighbors and are willing to do unconventional things to have the lawn they want. In other words, I think MQ or Ware would agree that additional organic matter would help them to reduce inputs, but might force them to compromise their ultimate goal for cutting height which they prioritize.


----------



## Mightyquinn (Jan 31, 2017)

Very good point Spammage! I wasn't trying to infer that OM isn't needed at all in all soils. It can be useful in some situations.


----------



## SCGrassMan (Dec 17, 2017)

Mulching will help your lawn thicken up - Dandelions, thatch, poa annua, and much more will fill in any bare patches  Seriously though. Get rid of the garbage and weed seeds.


----------



## Ridgerunner (May 16, 2017)

Just some interesting "facts" about OM that I've collected over the years.
Percent OM is an estimate/quesstimate calculated by measuring the carbon content of soil:
About 5-25% (a common estimate is 15%) of organic content in soil is fresh organic material. (animal and plant). It is a good source of plant nutrients. Plant tissue is 45-50% carbon content.
It can take anywhere from days to two years for fresh organic material to decay to the point that it is no longer recognizable under a light microscope as plant or animal structures/material/cells. At this stage it is still a very significant source for nutrients as it continues to further decay over the next 10-40 years. 
After about 30 years, it reaches the point where it is highly resistant to further decay and is classified as humic substances (humin, Humic acids and fulvic acids) which can remain in the soil for centuries.. Humic substances are the source of OM's water holding capacity, soil aggregate capabilities, and CEC. 
Consequently:
1% soil OM content is approximately 460 lbs/M of OM or 267 lbs/M of soil carbon.
It is estimated that it would require the addition of 4600 lbs/M of organic material (grass clippings, tree leaves, alfalfa pellets, etc) to produce 460 lbs/M of OM or a 1% increase of soil OM.
1% soil OM content will result in 2 meq of CEC.

I'll post a link in my soil thread to a very good article.


----------

