# Liquid Aeration - Real or Not?



## Jacks_Designs

Good Video to Watch:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=najcug_WXZI


----------



## Grass Clippins

I like Matt. I don't know the whole story but I'd bet he got a little to wrapped up with the YouTube crowd and it's now affecting his credibility on the academic side of turf management. Hopefully he can add some truth in marketing to all the products that are being pitched. I'd like to see him dig into GCI's O2YS. Scam alert, maybe in works in Ag but what a rip off for turf.


----------



## Dieseldan9

Grass Clippins said:


> I like Matt. I don't know the whole story but I'd bet he got a little to wrapped up with the YouTube crowd and it's now affecting his credibility on the academic side of turf management. Hopefully he can add some truth in marketing to all the products that are being pitched. I'd like to see him dig into GCI's O2YS. Scam alert, maybe in works in Ag but what a rip off for turf.


What is o2ys?


----------



## Grass Clippins

@Dieseldan9 It's a "Natural Adjuvant" that Pete sells to all of his followers that don't know any better. 
Here's a rewrite. Similar to liquid aeration, it's just a wetting agent.


----------



## Babameca

The game is on and I love it! :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=najcug_WXZI


----------



## Sinclair

Interesting that his videos from a couple years ago touting the science and promoting products have been deleted from his channel.

Hindsight is 20/20 I guess.


----------



## Babameca

Open Discussion 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=najcug_WXZI


----------



## Green

Here we go...

But seriously, something tells me this will be an interesting video, and that the title is not what we think it is...


----------



## uts

Green said:


> Here we go...
> 
> But seriously, something tells me this will be an interesting video, and that the title is not what we thing it is...


I saw this video the minute it came out surprisingly, and knew there will be soo much buzz like he said about the hate, lol. I think the title and the end are phrased harshly, though the content is good. It is what a few people have been talking about how wetting agents/ surfactants are being marketed as aerating agents. Breaking it down just helped understand it better for me. I think the next few videos will also be educational. You have to take into account (as stated by matt) that some of the things he explains is an oversimplification of the process.


----------



## Gilley11

The "War"? I don't think that it's nearly that dramatic, but more of of a true comparison of mechanical aeration to a product category that leads people to believe that it is an easier alternative. Instead of them being marketed as liquid aeration products, a better description would be wetting agents.


----------



## ksturfguy

Sinclair said:


> Interesting that his videos from a couple years ago touting the science and promoting products have been deleted from his channel.
> 
> Hindsight is 20/20 I guess.


Yeah someone asked him about that on Youtube. He admitted he deleted the video and said he has learned more since then.


----------



## Ridgerunner

Where's the controversy? Do people actually believe that there is such a thing as liquid aeration? If so, your parents should have named you "Mark." So thegrassfactor posted an accurate analysis of the products on the market that may (or may NOT actually) differ from prior posts-as I recall, he never promoted the claims made by liquid aerators, he just identified the claimed theory the manufacturers were making as to how each worked. So he's reassessed those prior posts. You've never changed your mind about the wisdom of a prior act you made? I commend him on having the fortitude to publicly edit himself to produce something he feels is more accurate information. 
Let's have a little perspective and give it a rest. On the other hand, where's the indignation over his wearing a shirt he pulled out of the bottom of the hamper?


----------



## g-man

@Babameca @Sinclair @uts @Gilley11 @Green @ksturfguy

FYI, There were multiple post of the same subject and they were all merged here.


----------



## Ware

You can watch linked YouTube videos here on TLF without seeing the video description or comments, so please take note of the pinned comment shown below where he says he plans on doing a whole series of these "scam" videos.

As you can see, several of them may come across as somewhat contradictory (e.g. both liquid and granular fertilizers are a scam) or will be about products he has personally played a role in developing and/or stands behind (e.g. biochar and organic fertilizers).

So I wouldn't read too much into it - other than him simply doing a series of videos breaking down the shortcomings of all sorts of popular products. In his own words, he plans to "be an equal opportunity hater." :thumbup:


----------



## JERSEY

I love this.

John P .......snake oil

LOVE THIS


----------



## Ware

I've lived in my house for 10 years and have never used mechanical or liquid aeration on my lawn - and it still looks pretty dang good. Does that make me a scam? :lol:


----------



## JERSEY

but you got devils grass....LOL

I tried that J>P> snake oil 3 years ago.....fleeced me for 200 clams.......

everyones has to figure it out themselves.....For me..NPK...thats what makes my turf respond......with mother natures H2o and sunshine.

J.P. sells alot of hope and fantasy.........in my book.


----------



## g-man

I want to expand on what Matt shared. He showed very clear that the products sold as an equivalent to mechanical aeration can't do the same job. Further he showed the ingredients reflect them as wetting agents, penetrant wetting agents.

Penetrants a due have a turf benefit in some situations. They are not snake oil. The golf industry uses them for decades. How can they help?

1) hydrophobic soils - they can prevent and relief some hydrophobic soils. This means that when it rains/irrigation, the turf will look more uniform.

2) water penetration - this helps water to move thru the soil profile a little bit faster. If you have a grading issue in your yard that causes puddles, then water can move deeper into the soil and dry the area a little faster. It does not provide a water retention (like other more expensive wetting agents can). This should help the visual aspect of the turf in those areas.

But, you can get wetting agents locally from a turf supply company at a fraction of the cost than online. Shipping gallons of liquid gets expensive.

I suggest with any product you buy that you are not sure how good it works, do a small control (untreated) area so you can compare. Is it better? Is it better for $x/ksqft?


----------



## Babameca

@g-man Thank for merging and for the explanation here above.


----------



## JERSEY

Gman
J Perry isnt marketing his products as wetting agents. His approach, playing guitar and talking about soil health......with his solution (his product) doesnt work for me. I spent the $, and I proved to myself it doesnt work. I did not use for 2 years post the experiment, better results Without his humic- products.

furthermore, he pumps his products and states Nitrogen isnt needed in recommended amounts. He pushes under 1 lb of N a year. Maybe that works in the mountains of Utah.....but it dont work in NJ NPK works here. sure iron give a short effect on color, NPK is what is paramount in plant life. It has to be there, and the plant takes what it wants. He made alot of money selling a liquid snake oil in my opinion.

I appreciate your comment, but I find him very much like a used car salesman. The whole world is free to buy his shtick and products, not me.


----------



## Grass Clippins

@JERSEY I don't think Gman is defending JP or Air8. He's just describing Air8 as a wetting agent and telling why wettings agents aren't snake oil. Call Air8 a scam because it's a misrepresented product but technically it's not snake oil.

I'm not a fan of all the hype GCF gets and sometimes feel like their marketing is a little predatorial but I wouldn't let that steer you away from exploring soil health. I personally feel that soil health is paramount to plant life. Unfortunately it takes a while to build soil health so I can see why people dismiss those products as "snake oil".


----------



## doverosx

uts said:


> Green said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here we go...
> 
> But seriously, something tells me this will be an interesting video, and that the title is not what we thing it is...
> 
> 
> 
> I saw this video the minute it came out surprisingly, and knew there will be soo much buzz like he said about the hate, lol. I think the title and the end are phrased harshly, though the content is good. It is what a few people have been talking about how wetting agents/ surfactants are being marketed as aerating agents. Breaking it down just helped understand it better for me. I think the next few videos will also be educational. You have to take into account (as stated by matt) that some of the things he explains is an oversimplification of the process.
Click to expand...

100%. I've never observed an airation effect and additionally... I'm still going to buy Air8 when the borders open up soooo I don't see this as bad at all.


----------



## The_Urban_Griot

I saw that video and he was stating the obvious. Out of curiosity, I have tried a couple of liquid aeration products over the years.. Followed instructions to the tee and, in my opinion, all of them are bogus. At least on MD clay soil. If aeration is needed mechanical is the only way to go for real results.


----------



## ABC123

he must be transforming to all clover? :lol:


----------



## ricwilli

I haven't seen the video yet but man, this thread is making feel like poop. I just ordered some RGS and Air-8.


----------



## occamsrzr

ricwilli said:


> I haven't seen the video yet but man, this thread is making feel like poop. I just ordered some RGS and Air-8.


Don't feel bad. There is still value in these products. Just set your expectations correctlty and know when these tools are best used. That's what Matt's whole thesis is. Wetting agents have their usage. Humic and kelp have their usage (he also has videos calling Humic a scam if used incorrectly). Know their strengths. Know their weaknesses. Think critically the next time you want to reorder.


----------



## elgrow

ricwilli said:


> I haven't seen the video yet but man, this thread is making feel like poop. I just ordered some RGS and Air-8.


Yeah man I would recommend watching the video but I wouldn't beat yourself up over it. I used RGS and AIr-8 this spring through summer for the first time and it sure did seem like they were helping with my soil and grass establishment in some packed sand areas. If they are part of your balanced lawncare regimen then thats fine, but don't plan for them to be the only thing.

In the video he says aeration provides 3 benefits and these liquid aerators only provide 1 of those 3, so they cannot be equal to mechanical aeration. The two things he says they do not offer is bulk removal of soil and increase in gas exchange in the soil.

As someone else posted he is going to be doing a series of these videos on a lot of popular products that people don't tend to think of scams. I think he is just trying to highlight and educate people on what these products actually do and when to use them.


----------



## OnTheLawn

So here's my take:

When we think of aeration, we think of removing cores from the soil. We think of something physical happening because that's the way it's been for as long as aeration has been a thing. Ultimately, to aerate something means to introduce air into a material. It doesn't mean "remove mass", it doesn't mean "decrease bulk density". It simply means to introduce air into a material. The cores are a byproduct of mechanical aeration, not the purpose. Decreasing bulk density is a byproduct of mechanical aeration, but not the purpose. It ultimately leads to the purpose it serves and the goal of mechanical aeration, which is to INTRODUCE AIR into the soil, but isn't the primary objective. It's the means to the end, but is just one way of achieving the goal.

So, to me, if liquid products can achieve that, then they are not a scam. The end result is what matters and as someone who has used a liquid aerating product, tested it in multiple plots with multiple control plots, and seen actual physical results in the reduction of soil compaction, which inherently leads to greater airflow in the soil, then I would say that the end result is very much the same. Different means, sure, but the end result gives you what the ultimate goal of aeration is.


----------



## davegravy

OnTheLawn said:


> So here's my take:
> 
> When we think of aeration, we think of removing cores from the soil. We think of something physical happening because that's the way it's been for as long as aeration has been a thing. Ultimately, to aerate something means to introduce air into a material. It doesn't mean "remove mass", it doesn't mean "decrease bulk density". It simply means to introduce air into a material. The cores are a byproduct of mechanical aeration, not the purpose. Decreasing bulk density is a byproduct of mechanical aeration, but not the purpose. It ultimately leads to the purpose it serves and the goal of mechanical aeration, which is to INTRODUCE AIR into the soil, but isn't the primary objective. It's the means to the end, but is just one way of achieving the goal.
> 
> So, to me, if liquid products can achieve that, then they are not a scam. The end result is what matters and as someone who has used a liquid aerating product, tested it in multiple plots with multiple control plots, and seen actual physical results in the reduction of soil compaction, which inherently leads to greater airflow in the soil, then I would say that the end result is very much the same. Different means, sure, but the end result gives you what the ultimate goal of aeration is.


I haven't looked at your experiments, so not commenting on the validity of your results /observations. But I'm having trouble wrapping my head around how you can introduce air into a given volume of soil without decreasing bulk density. Those added air molecules need to displace soil molecules, don't they?


----------



## OnTheLawn

davegravy said:


> OnTheLawn said:
> 
> 
> 
> So here's my take:
> 
> When we think of aeration, we think of removing cores from the soil. We think of something physical happening because that's the way it's been for as long as aeration has been a thing. Ultimately, to aerate something means to introduce air into a material. It doesn't mean "remove mass", it doesn't mean "decrease bulk density". It simply means to introduce air into a material. The cores are a byproduct of mechanical aeration, not the purpose. Decreasing bulk density is a byproduct of mechanical aeration, but not the purpose. It ultimately leads to the purpose it serves and the goal of mechanical aeration, which is to INTRODUCE AIR into the soil, but isn't the primary objective. It's the means to the end, but is just one way of achieving the goal.
> 
> So, to me, if liquid products can achieve that, then they are not a scam. The end result is what matters and as someone who has used a liquid aerating product, tested it in multiple plots with multiple control plots, and seen actual physical results in the reduction of soil compaction, which inherently leads to greater airflow in the soil, then I would say that the end result is very much the same. Different means, sure, but the end result gives you what the ultimate goal of aeration is.
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't looked at your experiments, so not commenting on the validity of your results /observations. But I'm having trouble wrapping my head around how you can introduce air into a given volume of soil without decreasing bulk density. Those added air molecules need to displace soil molecules, don't they?
Click to expand...

What's the one test every lawn care expert will tell you to perform to check soil compaction? A screwdriver. I did so and in most areas I couldn't get the tip of a flathead screwdriver more than an inch into the soil without extreme effort. In most areas, I couldn't get it any further than 2-3" putting as much weight as I could into it. I used the SLL Liquid Soil Loosener on the lawn, but Left certain areas untouched to see what would happen. I'm a proponent of testing things, seeing how they work, looking at results and comparing them to controls. I have test plots of fertilized grass going against unfertilized grass. I enjoy these things, and learning as much as I can based on actual results, but I also don't want to be throwing my money away.

The results spoke for themselves. With the same screwdriver, I was able to drive into the soil the length of the shaft straight to the handle without much effort at all. In the untreated areas, same as before. I couldn't drive the screwdriver into the ground without exerting as much force as possible and couldn't get even close to the handle, no more than a few inches. There were areas I knew that were serious trouble areas that I targeted with treatment and other trouble areas that I knew of that I left alone. The treated areas showed results, the untreated areas remained the same.

So, if a screwdriver is able to penetrate the soil with significantly greater ease, then I would imagine air should be able to as well. Is it scientific? No, in fact it's a fairly primitive way of checking soil compaction. But if that's the way all of these experts tell us to do it, and that test shows the results we're looking for after using a product, then personally I would say that product works.

Is it an exact replacement for mechanical aeration? No, it's not, if you're looking for all of the benefits that mechanical aeration provides. Is liquid aeration therefore a scam? No, it's not. It doesn't claim to give you all of the benefits of mechanical aeration, it claims to aerate the soil.

Listen, I love Matt. He's a genius, he knows more than I'll ever hope to know, and I watch most of his videos, tune into the Help Desk Live, etc. He's incredible. What I'll say is that it's very odd that his latest hot takes come on the precipice of cool season/transition zone lawn projects and have quite a focus on the specific products/formulations/technology of a specific company. Humic and phosphorus? Liquid Aeration? Now all of the people investing into GCF N-EXT products for their renovation/overseeding projects are sent into a tizzy and questioning everything. To me, it's felt like a very pointed, targeted agenda.

He spent nearly twice as long discussing Air8 in that video vs any of the other products.


----------



## Ridgerunner

> I haven't looked at your experiments, so not commenting on the validity of your results /observations. But I'm having trouble wrapping my head around how you can introduce air into a given volume of soil without decreasing bulk density. Those added air molecules need to displace soil molecules, don't they?


 :thumbup: 
Words have meanings.
Let's not confuse water aeration with soil aeration.


----------



## Grass Clippins

@OnTheLawn I respectfully disagree. Can you imagine paying someone to aerate your lawn only to find that they just set up a sprinkler and called it day. Then they explained "well...water contains oxygen so technically I did aerate because I introduced air into your material". I doubt you'd be ok with that argument.


----------



## OnTheLawn

Grass Clippins said:


> @OnTheLawn I respectfully disagree. Can you imagine paying someone to aerate your lawn only to find that they just set up a sprinkler and called it day. Then they explained "well...water contains oxygen so technically I did aerate because I introduced air into your material". I doubt you'd be ok with that argument.


We can agree to disagree and that's what makes forums like this great. It creates discussion and different ways of looking at things and ultimately, greater community. If there was only one thing that worked then we wouldn't really need discussion, would we?


----------



## ABC123

I think claiming it as "aeration" is false. They just want to market a buzz word and profit off of it. A soil wetting agent is closer to what it is, it makes soil able to be wetter.


----------



## davegravy

Ridgerunner said:


> I haven't looked at your experiments, so not commenting on the validity of your results /observations. But I'm having trouble wrapping my head around how you can introduce air into a given volume of soil without decreasing bulk density. Those added air molecules need to displace soil molecules, don't they?
> 
> 
> 
> :thumbup:
> Words have meanings.
> Let's not confuse water aeration with soil aeration.
Click to expand...

Genuinely unclear if you're saying I'm confusing those two things, mainly because I'm not sure what the difference is. I think with water you can't add air without either displacing water from an unsealed vessel or increasing the air pressure in a sealed vessel. I have no idea if the same is true with soil, but I'd assume it is. Please enlighten me (pun intended).


----------



## davegravy

@OnTheLawn I think this question you raised is key: "does the fact that my screwdriver penetrates soil more easily after using these products mean oxygen also permeates it more easily?" (paraphrased)

To me, the screwdriver test is indicative of the force required to break apart soil structure. That might be representative of how easily rhizomes/roots can push through it as they grow, so you might have demonstrated the products have some very real benefits to turf.

I don't however expect this means oxygen permeates or circulates through the soil more easily, since oxygen probably isn't applying forces of this magnitude and breaking soil structures to enter. It probably permeates more by convection which would depend on the size and frequency of air pockets between soil molecules (ie it's related to density).

If I'm right in my description above (I'm no expert), this would mean your screwdriver observations demonstrated the products have some but not all the benefits of mechanical aeration, which is consistent with the video's messaging.

This stuff is pretty neat to think about!


----------



## Babaganoosh

I can't believe anyone fell for that liquid aeration air8 BS.

That is carnival type sh*t in my eyes. Then again I'm naturally a skeptic.


----------



## Babameca

A follow up by Matt. He shaked the lawn business...hard and I like it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MypMkN_qDIU


----------



## Grass Clippins

@OnTheLawn So now you've got me thinking...and I'm starting to question everything :lol: . Let me go out on a limb with my little dad brain and tinker with the idea that mechanical aeration might be an overhyped outdated idea, similar to how the no-till farmers view those who till. This liquid vs mechanical argument might have people putting mechanical aeration on pedestal that it doesn't deserve. Maybe the next video will be "Mechanical Aeration is a Scam". I'm not saying it's ineffective, just proposing that it might not be as essential as everyone thinks. How often have you heard someone associate fall with "aerate & overseed"? Almost everyone does but few people question why. In nature we don't see mechanical aeration, we see "liquid aeration" a.k.a. rain which drive roots and decrease bulk density. This natural process checks all three boxes. Nature keeps the cycle going by keeping the soil covered to prevent the soil from going hydrophobic and becoming compacted. In turf management, keeping your soil completely protected from the sun for years on end seems to be the tricky part. My bare or thin spots get dry, go hydrophobic and become compacted over and over again. As far as I know the remedy for this would be a wetting agent not mechanical aeration. Honestly, the only reason why I mechanically core aerate is to get good seed to soil contact when I overseed. To your point maybe a wetting agent is more effective long term at indirectly introducing air to soil?

THAT BEING SAID...when I go to purchase a wetting agent I will not purchase Air8. I'm not paying for "liquid aeration" because I think it's BS marketing. The roots are doing the aeration, I feel the wetting agent just helps you effectively get water to roots so they can do their thing. I'm a proponent of wetting agents, just don't call it liquid aeration.

Side note: I don't think it's cool how Matt called out Silver Symbol as a "TikTok YouTuber" while not mentioning Alan and Pete. Silver Symbol is one of the nicest guys on the internet and had one video on liquid aeration while Alan and Pete are constantly pushing it along with several other questionable products. Those are his buddies and vendors of Carbon Earth Products so he's obviously not burning all of his bridges. :lol:


----------



## Lawn Noob

Jake the Lawn Kid just put out a video defending Air8. At about 12:50, he says of Air 8; "It works. It works better than mechanical aeration"


----------



## Babameca

Guys, Matt is on the way to shake it ALL. Not only Air8. I have done some work on what he will present on few future videos.
I did a sample test yesterday on a VERY respected brand fert. 33-0-0. Ingredients are AS, Urea and Umaxx. All soluble right?
Well I put this in a jar of water and mixed. Guess what I have been left with? Rocks... yes, 2-4mm rocks as a filler.
What about liquid ferts? How much of it is water, just TAP water? Take a jug, read the label, do your own math.


----------



## elgrow

Lawn Noob said:


> Jake the Lawn Kid just put out a video defending Air8. At about 12:50, he says of Air 8; "It works. It works better than mechanical aeration"


Man thats not a great look. I know he is a big proponent of that stuff, but I feel like he is way too young to be throwing all of his eggs in that basket.

John Perry actually addressed it in his recent live stream and I felt like he had a pretty reasonable take on it. He said he disagreed with Matt slightly on some of the science of Air-8 but overall agreed on the points of the video and encouraged everyone to watch it.

Currently watching through Matt's followup video but that one will take a while, but the backlash is hilarious.


----------



## ricwilli

Is aerating going to help so that I'm able to push this screwdriver into the ground? I'm only able to get an 1" 1/4 into the ground right now. 😂 😂 😂


----------



## Ridgerunner

davegravy said:


> Ridgerunner said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't looked at your experiments, so not commenting on the validity of your results /observations. But I'm having trouble wrapping my head around how you can introduce air into a given volume of soil without decreasing bulk density. Those added air molecules need to displace soil molecules, don't they?
> 
> 
> 
> :thumbup:
> Words have meanings.
> Let's not confuse water aeration with soil aeration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Genuinely unclear if you're saying I'm confusing those two things, mainly because I'm not sure what the difference is. I think with water you can't add air without either displacing water from an unsealed vessel or increasing the air pressure in a sealed vessel. I have no idea if the same is true with soil, but I'd assume it is. Please enlighten me (pun intended).
Click to expand...

You aren't confusing anything, although I'm not sure how much oxygen it would take to change soil bulk density.  I gave the :thumbup: because I agreed with you. It's all about bulk density. The terms aeration and compaction relief are nearly synonyms in the turf world. Has been for at least the last 60 years.


----------



## ksturfguy

elgrow said:


> Lawn Noob said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jake the Lawn Kid just put out a video defending Air8. At about 12:50, he says of Air 8; "It works. It works better than mechanical aeration"
> 
> 
> 
> Man thats not a great look. I know he is a big proponent of that stuff, but I feel like he is way too young to be throwing all of his eggs in that basket.
Click to expand...

No offense but JTLK doesn't know any better. God bless him for making a name for himself and being an entrepreneur but I can't watch him.


----------



## Ridgerunner

As I've mentioned, the terms aeration and compaction relief are nearly synonyms in turf cultivation and have been for at least 60 years. Although aeration has been used for a number of other purposes over the years (lime incorporation, reducing OM or thatch or breaking a hydrophobic layer--and NO it was never labeled as _mechanical surfactantation_), it's purpose has always been relieving soil compaction. Historically aeration has been a mechanical process involving the physical cultivation of the soil.
Consequently, the term aeration (when used in relation to turf or agriculture) implies soil compaction reduction. Words/terms have meaning. I think that was the point of this YT video. It employs processes of critical thinking to analyzing whether or not "liquid aerators" reduced compaction. If "liquid aerators" did reduce compaction, then labeling them aerators would be justified. If they didn't, then labeling them aerators is misleading at best.

I'll save the explanation of compaction, how it adversely affects plants and soil health and how it's measured/determined. (A screwdriver is not involved, but bulk density is.)


----------



## OnTheLawn

ricwilli said:


> Is aerating going to help so that I'm able to push this screwdriver into the ground? I'm only able to get an 1" 1/4 into the ground right now. 😂 😂 😂


Core aeration won't, ONLY liquid aeration will


----------



## Grass Clippins

I'm catching up on The Factor videos and thought I'd take a look at the Carbon Earth website to see what's new. Noticed that Yard Mastery (LCN) is the only vendor linked for DIY. Has is always been that way or did they drop GCI?

EDIT: Never mind, you have to click Yard Mastery to get to the GCI link.


----------



## g-man

The proper tool to measure compaction is a penetrometer. But as he explains in this video, you need to account for moisture/clay. It takes some experience to properly use it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zq_785JqRq8


----------



## ksturfguy

Grass Clippins said:


> I'm catching up on The Factor videos and thought I'd take a look at the Carbon Earth website to see what's new. Noticed that Yard Mastery (LCN) is the only vendor linked for DIY. Has is always been that way or did they drop GCI?


I just went to GCI website and its still showing on there. I just bough Xstart through GCI a couple weeks ago


----------



## Ridgerunner

OnTheLawn said:


> ricwilli said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is aerating going to help so that I'm able to push this screwdriver into the ground? I'm only able to get an 1" 1/4 into the ground right now. 😂 😂 😂
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Core aeration won't, ONLY liquid aeration will
Click to expand...

A soaker hose or a $1/bottle shampoo drench will too.


----------



## Ridgerunner

g-man said:


> The proper tool to measure compaction is a penetrometer. But as he explains in this video, you need to account for moisture/clay. It takes some experience to properly use it.


Some practice and $6 grand for a good one


----------



## Grass Clippins

ksturfguy said:


> Grass Clippins said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm catching up on The Factor videos and thought I'd take a look at the Carbon Earth website to see what's new. Noticed that Yard Mastery (LCN) is the only vendor linked for DIY. Has is always been that way or did they drop GCI?
> 
> 
> 
> I just went to GCI website and its still showing on there. I just bough Xstart through GCI a couple weeks ago
Click to expand...

The Carbon Earth Website must have a little glitch. You have to click the Yard Mastery link to get the link for GCI. I edited my previous comment so it doesn't look like I'm spreading rumors. It'll be interesting to see how this all shakes out but Matt and JP are definitely going through a divorce. I had no idea it was so serious, sounds like Matt is getting blacklisted. It's unfortunate they're being so petty.


----------



## OnTheLawn

Ridgerunner said:


> As I've mentioned, the terms aeration and compaction relief are nearly synonyms in turf cultivation and have been for at least 60 years. Although aeration has been used for a number of other purposes over the years (lime incorporation, reducing OM or thatch or breaking a hydrophobic layer--and NO it was never labeled as _mechanical surfactantation_), it's purpose has always been relieving soil compaction. Historically aeration has been a mechanical process involving the physical cultivation of the soil.
> Consequently, the term aeration (when used in relation to turf or agriculture) implies soil compaction reduction. Words/terms have meaning. I think that was the point of this YT video. It employs processes of critical thinking to analyzing whether or not "liquid aerators" reduced compaction. If "liquid aerators" did reduce compaction, then labeling them aerators would be justified. If they didn't, then labeling them aerators is misleading at best.
> 
> I'll save the explanation of compaction, how it adversely affects plants and soil health and how it's measured/determined. (A screwdriver is not involved, but bulk density is.)


I'm not arguing with you here, I just need to understand this as someone who does not know as much about the history, science, and overall knowledge of turf management as most, especially here.

More often than not, the most simple explanation and simple results are the most effective for the unprofessional. To me, compaction means that something is, well, compacted. It's tight. It means that something will have difficulty breaking through. When I drive a screwdriver into the soil and it goes down 1", that is a measurable result. When I then apply a product to the soil and I am able to drive that same screwdriver into that same spot with significantly less effort 12" into the ground, I again have a measurable result. Something has changed.

I guess what I'm getting at here is that for me, the novice, I need help understanding the differences here. Has this relieved compaction? Again, not arguing, I'm genuinely trying to be corrected if I need to be. I guess in my head it makes sense that if I can move something through the soil with greater ease, and the result of the same action has changed in the same spot, then that should mean air, roots, water, etc. movement will all be impacted as well. As they move through that soil, that same change should impact them as well.

And again, bulk density is a completely different subject. Liquid aeration will never do that. It can't. I'm just purely speaking from the changes I've seen in the soil with the product I've used. If I didn't see those changes and they weren't as significant as they were, I'd say whatever to all of this. It's just difficult when there is a change to the result. And the test I'm performing may be flawed, but if it is, as someone who doesn't understand that deeper parts of this, I need to know why.


----------



## doverosx

I left Facebook to get away from drama, so I'll keep checking in to see how the scientific discussions play out. Both JP and Matt are great contributors to the lawn community and both are necessary. I hope they *both * realize that if there's any beef to be had.

Let's continue with the critical thinking and the scientific proofs; that's how we truly grow and spend our money wisely.


----------



## doverosx

OnTheLawn said:


> Ridgerunner said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I've mentioned, the terms aeration and compaction relief are nearly synonyms in turf cultivation and have been for at least 60 years. Although aeration has been used for a number of other purposes over the years (lime incorporation, reducing OM or thatch or breaking a hydrophobic layer--and NO it was never labeled as _mechanical surfactantation_), it's purpose has always been relieving soil compaction. Historically aeration has been a mechanical process involving the physical cultivation of the soil.
> Consequently, the term aeration (when used in relation to turf or agriculture) implies soil compaction reduction. Words/terms have meaning. I think that was the point of this YT video. It employs processes of critical thinking to analyzing whether or not "liquid aerators" reduced compaction. If "liquid aerators" did reduce compaction, then labeling them aerators would be justified. If they didn't, then labeling them aerators is misleading at best.
> 
> I'll save the explanation of compaction, how it adversely affects plants and soil health and how it's measured/determined. (A screwdriver is not involved, but bulk density is.)
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not arguing with you here, I just need to understand this as someone who does not know as much about the history, science, and overall knowledge of turf management as most, especially here.
> 
> More often than not, the most simple explanation and simple results are the most effective for the unprofessional. To me, compaction means that something is, well, compacted. It's tight. It means that something will have difficulty breaking through. When I drive a screwdriver into the soil and it goes down 1", that is a measurable result. When I then apply a product to the soil and I am able to drive that same screwdriver into that same spot with significantly less effort 12" into the ground, I again have a measurable result. Something has changed.
> 
> I guess what I'm getting at here is that for me, the novice, I need help understanding the differences here. Has this relieved compaction? Again, not arguing, I'm genuinely trying to be corrected if I need to be. I guess in my head it makes sense that if I can move something through the soil with greater ease, and the result of the same action has changed in the same spot, then that should mean air, roots, water, etc. movement will all be impacted as well. As they move through that soil, that same change should impact them as well.
> 
> And again, bulk density is a completely different subject. Liquid aeration will never do that. It can't. I'm just purely speaking from the changes I've seen in the soil with the product I've used. If I didn't see those changes and they weren't as significant as they were, I'd say whatever to all of this. It's just difficult when there is a change to the result. And the test I'm performing may be flawed, but if it is, as someone who doesn't understand that deeper parts of this, I need to know why.
Click to expand...

You need to validate the total sum change. Use just water, repeat test. Use half rate of product, rate of product, double rate... compare results, ensure total liquid volume is the same and you've got your answer.


----------



## davegravy

OnTheLawn said:


> Ridgerunner said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I've mentioned, the terms aeration and compaction relief are nearly synonyms in turf cultivation and have been for at least 60 years. Although aeration has been used for a number of other purposes over the years (lime incorporation, reducing OM or thatch or breaking a hydrophobic layer--and NO it was never labeled as _mechanical surfactantation_), it's purpose has always been relieving soil compaction. Historically aeration has been a mechanical process involving the physical cultivation of the soil.
> Consequently, the term aeration (when used in relation to turf or agriculture) implies soil compaction reduction. Words/terms have meaning. I think that was the point of this YT video. It employs processes of critical thinking to analyzing whether or not "liquid aerators" reduced compaction. If "liquid aerators" did reduce compaction, then labeling them aerators would be justified. If they didn't, then labeling them aerators is misleading at best.
> 
> I'll save the explanation of compaction, how it adversely affects plants and soil health and how it's measured/determined. (A screwdriver is not involved, but bulk density is.)
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not arguing with you here, I just need to understand this as someone who does not know as much about the history, science, and overall knowledge of turf management as most, especially here.
> 
> More often than not, the most simple explanation and simple results are the most effective for the unprofessional. To me, compaction means that something is, well, compacted. It's tight. It means that something will have difficulty breaking through. When I drive a screwdriver into the soil and it goes down 1", that is a measurable result. When I then apply a product to the soil and I am able to drive that same screwdriver into that same spot with significantly less effort 12" into the ground, I again have a measurable result. Something has changed.
> 
> I guess what I'm getting at here is that for me, the novice, I need help understanding the differences here. Has this relieved compaction? Again, not arguing, I'm genuinely trying to be corrected if I need to be. I guess in my head it makes sense that if I can move something through the soil with greater ease, and the result of the same action has changed in the same spot, then that should mean air, roots, water, etc. movement will all be impacted as well. As they move through that soil, that same change should impact them as well.
> 
> And again, bulk density is a completely different subject. Liquid aeration will never do that. It can't. I'm just purely speaking from the changes I've seen in the soil with the product I've used. If I didn't see those changes and they weren't as significant as they were, I'd say whatever to all of this. It's just difficult when there is a change to the result. And the test I'm performing may be flawed, but if it is, as someone who doesn't understand that deeper parts of this, I need to know why.
Click to expand...

Let me take another stab at this...

Compaction is density. Take a bunch of dirt and squash it really hard with an industrial press... Now there's (almost) no air in it and you have compact soil. It's hard to put a screwdriver through it.

Now wet it - it's easier to get a screwdriver through it but you still have compacted (dense) soil with almost no air in it.

Crumble it apart and fluff it up. Now you have non-compact soil because you've let air into it. You've decreased its density.

The screwdriver just isn't a good instrument for measuring compaction. That doesn't mean it's a SCAM test method mind you 😛 it tells you some other important information.


----------



## OnTheLawn

@doverosx im running out of room to do test plots in the back yard... but fine!


----------



## Grass Clippins

@OnTheLawn Have you watched the follow up videos to the original? I just watched both, he explains it pretty well.


----------



## Ridgerunner

Water is a lubricant. Ever use spit to get a ring off?
A Surfactant promotes the dispersion and retention of water in the soil.
A surfactant will not reduce compaction/bulk density, but it will allow you to push a screwdriver easier into the soil.
Shampoo is a cheap surfactant. Find a virgin soil and spray half with a liquid aerator and the other half with a 10/1 shampoo mixture. Water both for an hour that night, the next morning do your screwdriver test.



> And again, bulk density is a completely different subject. Liquid aeration will never do that. It can't.


No, that IS the subject.
The point isn't that liquid aerators have no useful purpose. the point is that they do not reduce compaction/bulk density and that is what aeration is, the reduction of compaction by reducing bulk density. Liquid aerators are not aerators, they don't reduce compaction/bulk density.
A lot of people are missing the forest for the trees or they think distinctions aren't important, that words should be pliable. In that case: a car is a form of transportation. So are motorcycles, bikes, trains, trucks and airplanes, so rather than use specific terms lets just call all forms of transportation scooters. Are you taking your scooter to work tomorrow? I'm leaving on a scooter tomorrow for Europe to go fishing on my friends scooter. 
Seriously, hope you ain't think I'm disrespecting...err dissing you, now that nouns are verbs. 
For me this is as much about language, clarity and communication as it is about products.


----------



## davegravy

Maybe it would be helpful to distinguish in practical terms between what the following different things mean for the health of one's turf:

1) screwdriver inserts easily into soil
2) soil is not compact (has low bulk density)

I think 1) means roots and rhizomes can grow with less effort (more abundantly?), and water and nutrients permeate more readily.

2) I'm not too sure. Microbial action is increased due to abundant supply of oxygen? Which leads to...?


----------



## elgrow

Maybe I misheard this in the original video, but didn't he say that aeration only improves bulk soil density and gas exchange for about a month max. That is unless you take the cores away and then some of the bulk density will obviously be removed.

So aerating once a year like most home owners do, really doesn't affect the soil all that much outside of the 1 month per year they are doing it.


----------



## OnTheLawn

Ridgerunner said:


> Water is a lubricant. Ever use spit to get a ring off?
> A Surfactant promotes the dispersion and retention of water in the soil.
> A surfactant will not reduce compaction/bulk density, but it will allow you to push a screwdriver easier into the soil.
> Shampoo is a cheap surfactant. Find a virgin soil and spray half with a liquid aerator and the other half with a 10/1 shampoo mixture. Water both for an hour that night, the next morning do your screwdriver test.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And again, bulk density is a completely different subject. Liquid aeration will never do that. It can't.
> 
> 
> 
> No, that IS the subject.
> The point isn't that liquid aerators have no useful purpose. the point is that they do not reduce compaction/bulk density and that is what aeration is, the reduction of compaction by reducing bulk density. Liquid aerators are not aerators, they don't reduce compaction/bulk density.
> A lot of people are missing the forest for the trees or they think distinctions aren't important, that words should be pliable. In that case: a car is a form of transportation. So are motorcycles, bikes, trains, trucks and airplanes, so rather than use specific terms lets just call all forms of transportation scooters. Are you taking your scooter to work tomorrow? I'm leaving on a scooter tomorrow for Europe to go fishing on my friends scooter.
> Seriously, hope you ain't think I'm disrespecting...err dissing you, now that nouns are verbs.
> For me this is as much about language, clarity and communication as it is about products.
Click to expand...

No disrespect, dissing, or offense taken. This explains it perfectly and after some more digging, I'm understanding now. The word aeration, while being defined as "introducing air into something", is not singularly defined across all things it's used for. You're right, words language, and clarity are important here and I do believe that's what Matt was getting at, but I think the route he's taking to get there is a bit ehhhh, pointed.

But I get it. That brings clarity and understanding for someone like me and I appreciate the explanation.


----------



## OnTheLawn

Grass Clippins said:


> @OnTheLawn Have you watched the follow up videos to the original? I just watched both, he explains it pretty well.


I haven't watched the follow up video, but will today. Again, I love Matt and it seems to be just a big misunderstanding, especially with people like me who are newer to the community and just don't know quite as much, in the language he used and what I interpreted. I'll stand by the fact that I don't think it's a coincidence that his two hottest takes lately go directly against GCF products at the onset of renovation and overseeding season. Whatever rift there is, I hope they mend it because of all the YouTubers I subscribe to, those two are my favorite and at this point I'm pretty much strictly using GCF and Carbon Earth products.

I guess what rubbed me the wrong way was the overarching "liquid aerators are a scam". Right from the onset of the video, I probably (definitely) had a jaded view of the entire thing. As someone who has used a liquid aerating tool and seen results, albeit different results than what mechanical aeration provides, the overarching theme just got to me haha. But after discussion I can see that wasn't his point, and I appreciate everyone here helping me get to that point.


----------



## BobLovesGrass

I think you make a good point on how it seems to be aimed at GCF and seems there may be business motivation but i think it important to not read that as strictly business driven malice, can be a legitimate difference of opinion on how to do things.

It is also important to understand there are a staggering variety of soil types and overall situations, YOUR results don't predict the same for the next guy because his situation is likely different.

In my case I saw no benefit from mechanical aeration, but gypsum was a great addition, and the liquid products are helping with my under tree areas that need help from wetting agents.


----------



## Easyluck

At the beginning of the video Matt defines aeration. Not the dictionary definition but the lawn and turf professional definition.


----------



## Easyluck

BobLovesGrass said:


> I think you make a good point on how it seems to be aimed at GCF and seems there may be business motivation but i think it important to not read that as strictly business driven malice, can be a legitimate difference of opinion on how to do things.
> 
> It is also important to understand there are a staggering variety of soil types and overall situations, YOUR results don't predict the same for the next guy because his situation is likely different.
> 
> In my case I saw no benefit from mechanical aeration, but gypsum was a great addition, and the liquid products are helping with my under tree areas that need help from wetting agents.


It's not like Matt picked products that all have the same scientific principles. He choose products that are uniquely different and then explained why each product doesn't meet the 3 principles of aeration. Therefore I don't believe there is any business driven malice.

Matt has also stated that mechanical aeration is a "trigger warning" (scam) and will also be making a video on why.


----------



## g-man

BobLovesGrass said:


> I think you make a good point on how it seems to be aimed at GCF and seems there may be business motivation.


I've watched the video. Can you point to minutes/seconds in the video that aims the video to just GCF? Also what is the business motivation?


----------



## g-man

elgrow said:


> So aerating once a year like most home owners do, really doesn't affect the soil all that much outside of the 1 month per year they are doing it.


Add to this that the machines used in homeowners lawns are not very effective. They don't provide enough cores/sqft. You likely need 3 passes to get good cores/sqft (I think Purdue has an article around it). The second problem with the machines is that they barely do deep enough cores. Trugreen did my neighbor yard and it had 1/8 to 1/4in cores because the soil was too dry and the machine has no weight to it. Most companies offer this service at a high price and promote it like a must do. It gives them good profit, but I doubt it is effective at all.

Golf courses use a very heavy machine with 4-6in or even deeper cores so they address the root zone. They backfill with sand to make the effect last longer.


----------



## ksturfguy

You guys clearly haven't seen the list of videos he is coming out with. He has videos stating, granular fert is a scam, liquid fert is a scam, biochar is a scam, etc. There was like 10 of them he mentioned. The "scam" part is clearly sarcastic in my opinion and just there to grab your attention. This just happened to be the 1st video.

I watched his Q/A video the other night which followed up on this and he said this was not a shot at JP and there is no rift going on between them right now. He said they have always had disagreements on stuff and this is nothing new. He just wanted people to use their critical thinking skills when buying different products.


----------



## davegravy

ksturfguy said:


> You guys clearly haven't seen the list of videos he is coming out with. He has videos stating, granular fert is a scam, liquid fert is a scam, biochar is a scam, etc. There was like 10 of them he mentioned. The "scam" part is clearly sarcastic in my opinion and just there to grab your attention. This just happened to be the 1st video.
> 
> I watched his Q/A video the other night which followed up on this and he said this was not a shot at JP and there is no rift going on between them right now. He said they have always had disagreements on stuff and this is nothing new. He just wanted people to use their critical thinking skills when buying different products.


I agree that this genuinely seems to be about making people think. Maybe this is semantics but "facetious" I think is the word he chose to describe his use of "SCAM"... slightly different (nicer) in meaning than "sarcastic". Also earlier in this thread Ware pointed out long the list of scam videos that are planned, so people here are (or should be) aware if they've been following.


----------



## Grass Clippins

@elgrow Below is an exaggerated example (picture) of what I would consider to be the ultimate compaction cure or aeration tool. I feel that a wetting agent would assist in this process more than mechanical aeration would. He talks about future videos in his follow up and we'll probably come to the conclusion that liquid aeration AND mechanical aeration are both "scams" compared to root aeration.


----------



## OnTheLawn

Ok, I watched the follow up video (most of it, will watch the rest on break). I'm also going to rewatch the initial video at some point with my bias glasses removed.

He definitely clears things up in the follow up and paints a better picture with better perspective. I guess the real issue people take with it is that these takes/videos can be seen as directed and with an agenda behind them. Whether or not that is Matt's intention, I'm not sure. It could be a coincidence, but it also could not be. Regardless, I get what he was actually getting at though. On the surface it just doesn't sit well with people when what he's putting out appears to be in direct conflict with a particular company's way of doing things and in this particular video spends nearly twice as long on that company's product dissecting the science behind it. But at the same time, we can all draw what we want from any source material and drive our own narrative, which is probably what I'm doing, so I will take back how harshly I came at him previously in regards to that. I will say the follow up video definitely makes the perspective more clear and I appreciate that he did it. Again, love Matt and his content and will continue to support him in this community.


----------



## doverosx

Grass Clippins said:


> @elgrow Below is an exaggerated example (picture) of what I would consider to be the ultimate compaction cure or aeration tool. I feel that a wetting agent would assist in this process more than mechanical aeration would. He talks about future videos in his follow up and we'll probably come to the conclusion that liquid aeration AND mechanical aeration are both "scams" compared to root aeration.


JP talks about root aeration in his soil series; his products are built precisely to promote this natural effect. So if Air8 allows water to permeate soil surface sufficiently to the root zone target, then.... it is an aeration product ;-)


----------



## Grass Clippins

doverosx said:


> Grass Clippins said:
> 
> 
> 
> @elgrow Below is an exaggerated example (picture) of what I would consider to be the ultimate compaction cure or aeration tool. I feel that a wetting agent would assist in this process more than mechanical aeration would. He talks about future videos in his follow up and we'll probably come to the conclusion that liquid aeration AND mechanical aeration are both "scams" compared to root aeration.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JP talks about root aeration in his soil series; his products are built precisely to promote this natural effect. So if Air8 allows water to permeate soil surface sufficiently to the root zone target, then.... it is an aeration product ;-)
Click to expand...

You're absolutely correct in saying his products are built to *promote* the natural effect, that has value. Keyword being promote or to help bring something into being. His products don't aerate, they enhance the natural process. To compare it to basketball. A player who passes the ball to the player who scores the point doesn't get the point, they get an assist. An assist is awesome but it's doesn't carry the same value as putting actual numbers on the board. Mechanical aeration puts numbers on the board, root aeration puts big numbers on the board. The wetting agent (Air8) seems to be the best teammate you could ask for but it can't do it alone. That's the best I can do... :lol: hopefully it makes sense.


----------



## Reel Low Dad

Ware said:


> I've lived in my house for 10 years and have never used mechanical or liquid aeration on my lawn - and it still looks pretty dang good. Does that make me a scam? :lol:


Fellow non aerators unite!!! We are the Future!!! 🤣😁


----------



## dwaugh

Aeration certainly is an interesting topic, although I would argue that aeration was only a minor theme of the video. It seemed to me more like a wakeup call to the YouTube lawn "community"/industry in the form of a mea culpa (possibly with a side of "axe to grind" mixed in). I see it as a good thing; it's important to think about why, and what you are buying (and at what cost). Ultimately residential lawns are a hobby, which brings spending into a realm of discretionary funds. In that context, the commodity price per pound N-P-K is decoupled from the market value, and entertainment and personal reward become more important.


----------



## JERSEY

I just wanna hear the bearded one play guitarr barefoot.......he is great. then sipp his coffee as he pontificates..............mezmorizing

1lb n is all you need......hahahaaaaaaaaa


----------



## OnTheLawn

Grass Clippins said:


> doverosx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grass Clippins said:
> 
> 
> 
> @elgrow Below is an exaggerated example (picture) of what I would consider to be the ultimate compaction cure or aeration tool. I feel that a wetting agent would assist in this process more than mechanical aeration would. He talks about future videos in his follow up and we'll probably come to the conclusion that liquid aeration AND mechanical aeration are both "scams" compared to root aeration.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JP talks about root aeration in his soil series; his products are built precisely to promote this natural effect. So if Air8 allows water to permeate soil surface sufficiently to the root zone target, then.... it is an aeration product ;-)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're absolutely correct in saying his products are built to *promote* the natural effect, that has value. Keyword being promote or to help bring something into being. His products don't aerate, they enhance the natural process. To compare it to basketball. A player who passes the ball to the player who scores the point doesn't get the point, they get an assist. An assist is awesome but it's doesn't carry the same value as putting actual numbers on the board. Mechanical aeration puts numbers on the board, root aeration puts big numbers on the board. The wetting agent (Air8) seems to be the best teammate you could ask for but it can't do it alone. That's the best I can do... :lol: hopefully it makes sense.
Click to expand...

This right here. This is gold. Well done. Puts it into the right perspective and covers all the bases.


----------



## gm560

Grass Clippins said:


> @elgrow Below is an exaggerated example (picture) of what I would consider to be the ultimate compaction cure or aeration tool. I feel that a wetting agent would assist in this process more than mechanical aeration would. He talks about future videos in his follow up and we'll probably come to the conclusion that liquid aeration AND mechanical aeration are both "scams" compared to root aeration.


I need me some turf type carrots.


----------



## TN Hawkeye

I really think that Matt is trying to make all of us stop for a second and think about what we are putting on our lawn. Every single thing on his list is going to be a scam to someone and a god send to others. But they are being marketed as the end all be all for everyone. Does anyone in Florida need help with moisture penetration into their lawn? Not hardly. Does anyone in Minnesota need to increase the OM in their black soil? Probably not. But products are being sold to everyone everywhere. Don't jump on the hype train. Really learn your lawn. What does it need? Soil tests, strategic application of products that fit your need, and knowing it is going to take time. One season of using anything is not going to give you an amazing lawn.


----------



## occamsrzr

gm560 said:


> Grass Clippins said:
> 
> 
> 
> @elgrow Below is an exaggerated example (picture) of what I would consider to be the ultimate compaction cure or aeration tool. I feel that a wetting agent would assist in this process more than mechanical aeration would. He talks about future videos in his follow up and we'll probably come to the conclusion that liquid aeration AND mechanical aeration are both "scams" compared to root aeration.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I need me some turf type carrots.
Click to expand...

Those are daikon radishes. Used a ton in Asia. I've been told they are used as a natural aerator by farmers here. Plant them in the fall. Let those giant roots mine nutrients. Leave them in the ground. The root decomposes and the plant available nutrients are available to your crop next year. It adds organic mater and allows a bit of gas exchange as the root breaks down. Same principle as root cycling that Matt Martin describes as a legit way to "aerate".


----------



## gm560

occamsrzr said:


> gm560 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grass Clippins said:
> 
> 
> 
> @elgrow Below is an exaggerated example (picture) of what I would consider to be the ultimate compaction cure or aeration tool. I feel that a wetting agent would assist in this process more than mechanical aeration would. He talks about future videos in his follow up and we'll probably come to the conclusion that liquid aeration AND mechanical aeration are both "scams" compared to root aeration.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I need me some turf type carrots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those are daikon radishes. Used a ton in Asia. I've been told they are used as a natural aerator by farmers here. Plant them in the fall. Let those giant roots mine nutrients. Leave them in the ground. The root decomposes and the plant available nutrients are available to your crop next year. It adds organic mater and allows a bit of gas exchange as the root breaks down. Same principle as root cycling that Matt Martin describes as a legit way to "aerate".
Click to expand...

Ahh, cool stuff. I was just joking but did think they were carrots.


----------



## occamsrzr

Here's a page that sells them for that purpose: https://hosstools.com/product/tillage-radish/


----------



## davegravy

Might be the next fall N blitz... Spring radish aeration. :lol:


----------



## doverosx

Grass Clippins said:


> doverosx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grass Clippins said:
> 
> 
> 
> @elgrow Below is an exaggerated example (picture) of what I would consider to be the ultimate compaction cure or aeration tool. I feel that a wetting agent would assist in this process more than mechanical aeration would. He talks about future videos in his follow up and we'll probably come to the conclusion that liquid aeration AND mechanical aeration are both "scams" compared to root aeration.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JP talks about root aeration in his soil series; his products are built precisely to promote this natural effect. So if Air8 allows water to permeate soil surface sufficiently to the root zone target, then.... it is an aeration product ;-)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're absolutely correct in saying his products are built to *promote* the natural effect, that has value. Keyword being promote or to help bring something into being. His products don't aerate, they enhance the natural process. To compare it to basketball. A player who passes the ball to the player who scores the point doesn't get the point, they get an assist. An assist is awesome but it's doesn't carry the same value as putting actual numbers on the board. Mechanical aeration puts numbers on the board, root aeration puts big numbers on the board. The wetting agent (Air8) seems to be the best teammate you could ask for but it can't do it alone. That's the best I can do... :lol: hopefully it makes sense.
Click to expand...

Good point, an even better analogy!


----------



## doverosx

TN Hawkeye said:


> I really think that Matt is trying to make all of us stop for a second and think about what we are putting on our lawn. Every single thing on his list is going to be a scam to someone and a god send to others. But they are being marketed as the end all be all for everyone. Does anyone in Florida need help with moisture penetration into their lawn? Not hardly. Does anyone in Minnesota need to increase the OM in their black soil? Probably not. But products are being sold to everyone everywhere. Don't jump on the hype train. Really learn your lawn. What does it need? Soil tests, strategic application of products that fit your need, and knowing it is going to take time. One season of using anything is not going to give you an amazing lawn.


Yes! Yes!


----------



## ricwilli

He released a video on Tenacity.

https://youtu.be/0aCm0WJayvk


----------



## kclyki02

occamsrzr said:


> gm560 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grass Clippins said:
> 
> 
> 
> @elgrow Below is an exaggerated example (picture) of what I would consider to be the ultimate compaction cure or aeration tool. I feel that a wetting agent would assist in this process more than mechanical aeration would. He talks about future videos in his follow up and we'll probably come to the conclusion that liquid aeration AND mechanical aeration are both "scams" compared to root aeration.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I need me some turf type carrots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those are daikon radishes. Used a ton in Asia. I've been told they are used as a natural aerator by farmers here. Plant them in the fall. Let those giant roots mine nutrients. Leave them in the ground. The root decomposes and the plant available nutrients are available to your crop next year. It adds organic mater and allows a bit of gas exchange as the root breaks down. Same principle as root cycling that Matt Martin describes as a legit way to "aerate".
Click to expand...

This is correct. They die and decompose in the fields. And it stinks to high heaven.


----------



## adgattoni

::MJ eating popcorn gif::

For what it's worth to anyone: my test plots yielded no appreciable results compared to the control. What works on my sand-capped clay soil bermuda lawn: water, PGR, micros, soil surfactants, cheap fertilizer.


----------



## Pezking7p

g-man said:


> I want to expand on what Matt shared. He showed very clear that the products sold as an equivalent to mechanical aeration can't do the same job. Further he showed the ingredients reflect them as wetting agents, penetrant wetting agents.
> 
> Penetrants a due have a turf benefit in some situations. They are not snake oil. The golf industry uses them for decades. How can they help?
> 
> 1) hydrophobic soils - they can prevent and relief some hydrophobic soils. This means that when it rains/irrigation, the turf will look more uniform.
> 
> 2) water penetration - this helps water to move thru the soil profile a little bit faster. If you have a grading issue in your yard that causes puddles, then water can move deeper into the soil and dry the area a little faster. It does not provide a water retention (like other more expensive wetting agents can). This should help the visual aspect of the turf in those areas.
> 
> But, you can get wetting agents locally from a turf supply company at a fraction of the cost than online. Shipping gallons of liquid gets expensive.
> 
> I suggest with any product you buy that you are not sure how good it works, do a small control (untreated) area so you can compare. Is it better? Is it better for $x/ksqft?


gman or anyone else: I've got a drainage ditch in my front yard I'm currently working to fill out by overseeding. It seems the slopes get either more direct sun, or have poor water uptake (or both) due to the slope because they are clearly a few levels below the rest of my yard in terms of grass quality/death over the last 18 months.

I've been thinking about hitting the banks with some liquid aeration to improve penetration. Thoughts on if this is an effective tool for sloped areas? This area has already been mechanically aerated, I'm not thinking this is a cure-all, just wondering if anyone has experience with sloped areas and using liquid aeration to help keep them looking nice.


----------



## g-man

No experience, but could help. In a steep slope, water will run off instead of infiltrating.


----------



## scz71864

I'm glad he's doing these videos. The longer I've been involved in this community, the more I realize people follow these content creators like blind mice. I think what Matt's trying to do is get people to slow down and understand what's behind the label and what's really going on in your lawn. As a DIYer, I trust what these people have to say, but I also realize there's a lot of money to be made by pushing products.


----------



## Pezking7p

Thanks for replying @g-man. I guess I'll give it a shot.



scz71864 said:


> I'm glad he's doing these videos. The longer I've been involved in this community, the more I realize people follow these content creators like blind mice. I think what Matt's trying to do is get people to slow down and understand what's behind the label and what's really going on in your lawn. As a DIYer, I trust what these people have to say, but I also realize there's a lot of money to be made by pushing products.


This is true of most marketing in most industries. The truth gets bent just far enough as to not be illegal. There are always people who just take the marketing at face value and never stop to think about what it means or what is really possible.

I'm a skeptic at heart, and I always question any unusual or specific wording in advertising. Reading the Air-8 marketing, it is full of double meanings and verbiage which, while true, is meant to mislead.

From the N-Ext website: 
*
Benefits of Liquid Aeration:

-Liquid aeration creates fractures within the soil and encourages greater rooting.* This is true. Wetting agents will break up hard clumps of dirt and allow more rooting. However, "fracture" makes it sounds like something different.

*-With liquid aerate the soil structure is split at a much smaller scale, allowing for deep penetration of water; roots will, in turn, follow, making nutrients available that were previously unreachable by the plant.* Again, true, just a restatement of the first point.

*-Liquid aeration can be done anytime during the growing season.

-Liquid aeration covers the entire lawn.

-There is no need to mark sprinkler heads, invisible fences or cable lines.* all true

*The goal of aerating a lawn is to get more oxygen, water, and nutrients into the root zone. Improving the aeration within the soil is especially beneficial to lawns that are growing in clay or compacted soils.* This is the shadiest bit of information on here. Notice they don't say anything about using Air-8 or even liquid aeration. They just provide a true statement about the goal of aeration.

No lies, just misleading statements.


----------



## davegravy

At least these products have some actual benefit. At least the industry hasn't devolved yet into selling completely useless products with big claims.

https://highend-electronics.com/products/acoustic-revive-rd-3-disc-demagnetizer

^my favorite example of a snakeoil product. I know people who have actually bought things like this and swear by them!


----------



## Grass Clippins

@Pezking7p I started to watch the GCF Air8 video but wouldn't finish is it for several reasons. I think that the "fractures" in the soil claim have to do with the humic content? Air8 contains 8% humic acid hence the 8 in Air8. I got to hand it to him, it's pretty clever. That's Don Draper level stuff.

I hope Matt doesn't myth bust my love affair with humic acid, I want to believe so bad :|


----------



## Pezking7p

@davegravy that is BAD! Also, crappy science aside, from a practical standpoint....if the disc is magnetized while playing inside the player, then how does demagnetizing it outside of the player help???? :roll:



Grass Clippins said:


> @Pezking7p I started to watch the GCF Air8 video but wouldn't finish is it for several reasons. I think that the "fractures" in the soil claim have to do with the humic content? Air8 contains 8% humic acid hence the 8 in Air8. I got to hand it to him, it's pretty clever. That's Don Draper level stuff.
> 
> I hope Matt doesn't myth bust my love affair with humic acid, I want to believe so bad :|


I've actually never looked at humic acid before (or any liquid aeration products except enough to know they exist), considering myself pretty stinking amateur I thought I should focus on the basics first. However, after a quick look at a few research articles it seems pretty clear that humic acid is very beneficial for grass, particularly under drought stress conditions. There doesn't seem to be any doubt about that. This isn't shocking, given it's status as an electrolyte.

The combination of a wetting agent and an electrolyte would seem to be a good thing, to me. I've seen some aerial photos of golf courses treated with some of these products, and the difference between treated and un-treated areas is striking. I wish I knew where to find the photos....


----------



## scz71864

So is Matt still involved with the Carbon Earth?


----------



## ricwilli

Pezking7p said:


> Thanks for replying @g-man. I guess I'll give it a shot.
> 
> 
> 
> scz71864 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm glad he's doing these videos. The longer I've been involved in this community, the more I realize people follow these content creators like blind mice. I think what Matt's trying to do is get people to slow down and understand what's behind the label and what's really going on in your lawn. As a DIYer, I trust what these people have to say, but I also realize there's a lot of money to be made by pushing products.
> 
> 
> 
> This is true of most marketing in most industries. The truth gets bent just far enough as to not be illegal. There are always people who just take the marketing at face value and never stop to think about what it means or what is really possible.
> 
> I'm a skeptic at heart, and I always question any unusual or specific wording in advertising. Reading the Air-8 marketing, it is full of double meanings and verbiage which, while true, is meant to mislead.
> 
> From the N-Ext website:
> *
> Benefits of Liquid Aeration:
> 
> -Liquid aeration creates fractures within the soil and encourages greater rooting.* This is true. Wetting agents will break up hard clumps of dirt and allow more rooting. However, "fracture" makes it sounds like something different.
> 
> *-With liquid aerate the soil structure is split at a much smaller scale, allowing for deep penetration of water; roots will, in turn, follow, making nutrients available that were previously unreachable by the plant.* Again, true, just a restatement of the first point.
> 
> *-Liquid aeration can be done anytime during the growing season.
> 
> -Liquid aeration covers the entire lawn.
> 
> -There is no need to mark sprinkler heads, invisible fences or cable lines.* all true
> 
> *The goal of aerating a lawn is to get more oxygen, water, and nutrients into the root zone. Improving the aeration within the soil is especially beneficial to lawns that are growing in clay or compacted soils.* This is the shadiest bit of information on here. Notice they don't say anything about using Air-8 or even liquid aeration. They just provide a true statement about the goal of aeration.
> 
> No lies, just misleading statements.
Click to expand...

FOOLED ME!!!!


----------



## adgattoni

Grass Clippins said:


> @Pezking7p I started to watch the GCF Air8 video but wouldn't finish is it for several reasons. I think that the "fractures" in the soil claim have to do with the humic content? Air8 contains 8% humic acid hence the 8 in Air8. I got to hand it to him, it's pretty clever. That's Don Draper level stuff.
> 
> I hope Matt doesn't myth bust my love affair with humic acid, I want to believe so bad :|


If I remember correctly, GCF's purported mechanism for Air8 is that they pull some of the leonardite shale + potassium hydroxide slurry before the humic extraction process is complete (this is how they make humic acid - by steeping leonardite shale in a vat of potassium hydroxide). That process finishing in the soil is supposed to create the microfractures.

No idea if any of this has any scientific basis or not. Didn't work for me and I remain skeptical.


----------



## ksturfguy

scz71864 said:


> So is Matt still involved with the Carbon Earth?


I think so but not 100% sure. Not sure if he was bought out or just joining with another company or what is going on. He made it seem like the company is getting bigger.


----------



## Grass Clippins

@ksturfguy & @scz71864 To my knowledge Matt and John Borden are Carbon Earth and that hasn't changed. GCF was just an investor. You guys may already know this but Matt is highly influential in parts of the industry. When I first got interested in lawn care I saw a few of his videos and dismissed him as just another YouTuber with extremely long intros and loud techno music. Little did I know that he's the dang Keyser Söze of the DIY lawn industry. I'm bullish on Carbon Earth, it probably has a much longer runway than GCF as long as they stay away from getting "cute" with their marketing and keep their financials straight.


----------



## Ridgerunner

Compaction occurs when the same amount of material is forced into a smaller volume reducing space between the particles. See https://extension.umn.edu/soil-management-and-health/soil-compaction
Soil compaction results in:
1. reduced space for gas exchange (less air/oxygen)
2. reduced moisture content. (less water)
3. reduced root penetration (less root growth)

Root growth begins to be inhibited at 1.5 Mpa and becomes severely inhibited at 2.5 MPa (about 363 lbs/square inch). Resistance is measured by using a penetrometer (see @g-man 's post above) and the protocol requires that the soil tested be at field capacity for moisture content.

The 1.5 2.5 MPa measurements have been correlated to bulk density measurements which vary by soil type. Inhibited root growth begins at a bulk density of 1.69 and severe resistance to root growth occurs at 1.8. At the other end of the spectrum, soils with > 45% clay content, inhibited root growth begins at a bulk density of 1.39 and severe resistance to root growth occurs at 1.47.

Reducing bulk density (adding space between particles) would improve soil water capacity and air/gas exchange. It also reduces soil penetration resistance allowing for root growth. Of the three, reducing resistance to root growth would seem to be primary, as what advantage would there be to improving overall soil air and water capacity if the roots can't move in to access them?
The debate over aerate (adding air) and aerate (reducing compaction), predates "liquid aerification." Core aeration (the removal of plugs of soil) vs solid tine aeration (with and without heaving action) and star style aeration (and other forms of "slit" aerators). In addition: the debate over the volume os soil that must be involved for aeration to be effective and the length of time the effects last. I expect @thegrassfactor will address all of these issues and more when he "debunks" common misconceptions and expectation about mechanical aeration.

When analyzing any product or process, it's important to me to know what it does and how it does it. In regard to liquid aerators: how do they increase soil moisture and air/oxygen content and reduce root growth resistance without increasing space between soil particles? If they increase space, what process is employed and how much space is created (the change in bulk density)? If it doesn't reduce bulk density (increase space), how does it produce increases in water and air capacity and how does it reduce resistance to root growth (what amount of reduction; are there limitations to it's effectiveness)? 
I'm interested any answers/explanations proffered, but expect follow up.


----------



## ksturfguy

Grass Clippins said:


> @ksturfguy & @scz71864 To my knowledge Matt and John Borden are Carbon Earth and that hasn't changed. GCF was just an investor. You guys may already know this but Matt is highly influential in parts of the industry. When I first got interested in lawn care I saw a few of his videos and dismissed him as just another YouTuber with extremely long intros and loud techno music. Little did I know that he's the dang Keyser Söze of the DIY lawn industry. I'm bullish on Carbon Earth, it probably has a much longer runway than GCF as long as they stay away from getting "cute" with their marketing and keep their financials straight.


Yeah in that follow up video he mentioned being under a gag order and not supposed to really talk about what is going on with Carbon Earth. Made some comments that they are expanding and getting bigger and dispelled the rumors that they are bankrupt and closing.

Im aware Carbon Earth and GCF are not connected and outside of RGS being in the first batch of Carbon X I'm not sure if they ever had any other involvement with each other. Maybe JP was an investor like you say. I agree with you about being bullish on Carbon Earth. I've been trying to get my local farm and home store to become a distributor but I think he pretty connected to the Lesco guys so sticking with that.


----------



## g-man

@Ridgerunner one of the methods that can do that is flocculation. It is a trade-off of sorts. Some particles get closer and tighter together (aggregation), thus allowing for more space between them (pores). These pores areas allow for water movement. But I don't *think* they change the overall total bulk density.

I few years go I researched Air8. The humic is just there for the ride. The KOH was studied in Africa for a mine or something. The KOH was reacting with the soil creating flocculation if I remember correctly. But the process was very dependent on the soil. For me, the maybe benefit was not worth the cost. I would prefer to try Aquatrols products.


----------



## dwaugh

@g-man and @Ridgerunner, very interesting stuff you guys mentioned. As Ridge pointed out, penetration resistance is correlated to "compaction" and moisture content, but there are other complexities. I was out in the yard today using a hand core aerator and was working on patch of clay rich near-water logged soil, the bulk density was high, but clearly the resistance to penetration was low (Ridge did mention the moisture influence on compaction) @g-man I don't know much about flocculation of clay in soil, but something else to consider is that many clays are also swelling. When I took a clay mineralogy class many moons ago, we has to fully dehydrate and fully hydrate two samples of each clay and run X-ray diffraction on each sample to measure the amount of swelling (to fully ID the clay mineral). Clays and soil are crazy complex.


----------



## g-man

Clays are complex. Clay is a very general description of just small particles. The composition of those particle matters too and whatever else is in the soil.


----------



## Ridgerunner

Thanks @g-man



> The KOH was studied in Africa for a mine or something. The KOH was reacting with the soil creating flocculation if I remember correctly.


If you come across that study again, I'd like to read it.
Without changing bulk density, you'd be taking space from between particles of the formed aggregate and moving it to between the aggregates. I don't see that happening in a compacted soil. In addition, wouldn't KOH disolve the humate and glomalin, destroying current aggregates?


----------



## g-man

I think it was this one. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02571862.2007.10634773


----------



## OnTheLawn

I almost wish Matt had done a more in depth preface to his initial video. After hearing the follow up videos, and even the tenacity video, there's such a greater understanding of what he's doing. The initial one he did really did get people thinking, and triggered, and that is good. It sparked discussion and resulted in someone like myself coming here with a different view point to have conversations and hash this out. To come to a greater understanding. It worked!


----------



## dwaugh

g-man said:


> Clays are complex. Clay is a very general description of just small particles. The composition of those particle matters too and whatever else is in the soil.


True, but in my example I was coming at it from a class of minerals, not particle size.


----------



## Grass Clippins

If anyone is looking for good reading material, SARE has a book Building Soils for Better Crops. You can download the PDF for free or pay for the hardcopy. I ordered the hardcopy, started in three times, never made it pass page 70. I'll eventually read the whole thing.


----------



## Pezking7p

g-man said:


> The proper tool to measure compaction is a penetrometer. But as he explains in this video, you need to account for moisture/clay. It takes some experience to properly use it.


Just curious as I read back through all of this thread. As you mentioned, the soil type is a factor, and needs to be gauged against some baseline for each soil type. So really this is almost measuring the interstitial space in a soil versus some "perfectly packed" soil arrangement for each soil type. Is soil bulk density/compaction really the metric that we are trying to improve with aeration, or is it just a proxy for some other soil property, such as "penetrability"?

For example, if the real goal is to ensure water and roots are able to penetrate soil easily, then this goal can be achieved by mechanical aeration - which decreases bulk density, thereby increasing interstitial space in soil and increases capillary action, which then also allows roots to more easily penetrate the moister/looser soil - or by adding a surfactant, which also increases capillary action and creates a moister/looser soil.

I realize I'm off down an odd path, but my brain had a thought...


----------



## Grass Clippins

@Pezking7p I think the word you may be looking for is _*tilth*_.

Building Health Soils talks about it on page 4:

_"We also want the soil to have good tilth so that plant roots can fully develop with the least amount of effort. A soil with good tilth is more spongy and less compact than one with poor tilth. A soil that has a favorable and stable soil structure also promotes rainfall infiltration and water storage for plants to use later. For good root growth and drainage, we want a soil with sufficient depth before a compact soil layer or bedrock is reached.
We want a soil to be well drained, so it dries enough in the spring and during the following rains to permit timely field operations. Also, it's essential that oxygen is able to reach the root zone to promote optimal root health-and that happens best in a soil without a drainage problem."_


----------



## Pezking7p

Grass Clippins said:


> @Pezking7p I think the word you may be looking for is _*tilth*_.
> 
> Building Health Soils talks about it on page 4:
> 
> _"We also want the soil to have good tilth so that plant roots can fully develop with the least amount of effort. A soil with good tilth is more spongy and less compact than one with poor tilth. A soil that has a favorable and stable soil structure also promotes rainfall infiltration and water storage for plants to use later. For good root growth and drainage, we want a soil with sufficient depth before a compact soil layer or bedrock is reached.
> We want a soil to be well drained, so it dries enough in the spring and during the following rains to permit timely field operations. Also, it's essential that oxygen is able to reach the root zone to promote optimal root health-and that happens best in a soil without a drainage problem."_


You're really pushing this book!

I think this description further supports my question above, though, that we have all these words to describe the soil's condition when really we are trying to describe how plants and water interact with the soil.

From the quote above:
-We want rainfall infiltration
-We want water storage
-We want soil that roots can penetrate easily
-We want soil to drain well (re: good infiltration)
-We want oxygen to reach the root zone (which they imply is promoted by good soil drainage, I imagine this is true as the water drains through the soil it should syphon air with it, as well as bringing dissolved oxygen)

There could be many ways to achieve these goals. I was just wondering if getting caught up on a particular measurement (soil bulk density, penetrometry) or technique (core aeration, surfactants, etc) is putting too fine a point on the matter. As long as we are achieving the above goals, isn't it a successful intervention?


----------



## Grass Clippins

@Pezking7p It's a good book :lol: ....and it's free.

I agree with you. If I'm reading you correctly, I believe you have arrived at the point. No one product or technique is going to achieve the goal of a healthier soil that encourages root exploration. Many have mentioned the toolbox comparison, it's a good one. Everyone's toolbox should contain different tools because we all have different types of soil. The part that takes time is figuring out what should be in your toolbox and why, unfortunately very few people want to do the research.


----------



## Ridgerunner

@Pezking7p I've been expecting you (well, your argument points).


> adding a surfactant, which also increases capillary action and creates a moister/looser soil.


A couple of issues with your observations;
1. I suspect the presence of a surfactant (not a wetting agent) would likely interfere with capillary action.
2. your use of the term "looser." That was a major point of the video analysis of "liquid aerators". HOW do they make soil looser? (thegrassfactor proposes that there is no scientific based explaination that would result in a "looser" soil.) If root penetration is improved by the introduction of lubricants (the surfactant and water), How much reduction would be expected over a field capacity wetted soil? How often would the change be great enough to change soil resistance to root growth? Unfortunately, I've never seen research on these issues.
3.


> Is soil bulk density/compaction really the metric that we are trying to improve with aeration, or is it just a proxy for some other soil property, such as "penetrability"?


Yes, the improvement of bulk density is the traditional purpose of performing core aeration. 
Bulk density has been found to be directly associated with root growth. Result from penetrometer ("penetrability") testing (when properly performed)have been correlated to bulk density. What distinction do you find between bulk density and "penetrabiliy"? Are you suggesting that root growth ("penetrability") is unrelated to bulk density? What objective measurement for root impedance would you suggest as a better method in the alternative?


----------



## Pezking7p

Grass Clippins said:


> @Pezking7p It's a good book :lol: ....and it's free.
> 
> I agree with you. If I'm reading you correctly, I believe you have arrived at the point. No one product or technique is going to achieve the goal of a healthier soil that encourages root exploration. Many have mentioned the toolbox comparison, it's a good one. Everyone's toolbox should contain different tools because we all have different types of soil. The part that takes time is figuring out what should be in your toolbox and why, unfortunately very few people want to do the research.


There you go with that book, again!

But seriously that's where I'm always at. I'm new to lawn care, but not new to, you know, life and other things. These same questions/debates/problems can be found in probably every hobby/profession.


----------



## Pezking7p

Ridgerunner said:


> @Pezking7p I've been expecting you (well, your argument points).
> 
> 
> 
> adding a surfactant, which also increases capillary action and creates a moister/looser soil.
> 
> 
> 
> A couple of issues with your observations;
> 1. I suspect the presence of a surfactant (not a wetting agent) would likely interfere with capillary action. * I could be using the term capillary action somewhat incorrectly, but a surfactant (for soils) will decrease the interfacial energy between the soil and water, and thus increase the surface area between the two. The point I was making is that the ability for water to penetrate hard, dry soil is improved with a surfactant. This probably isn't true for ALL soils, though. *
> 2. your use of the term "looser." That was a major point of the video analysis of "liquid aerators". HOW do they make soil looser? (thegrassfactor proposes that there is no scientific based explaination that would result in a "looser" soil.) If root penetration is improved by the introduction of lubricants (the surfactant and water), How much reduction would be expected over a field capacity wetted soil? How often would the change be great enough to change soil resistance to root growth? Unfortunately, I've never seen research on these issues. * by "looser" I just meant that the individual soil particles are easier to move apart. Roots will have an easier time growing through dirt if it is easy to separate, instead of dry and hard. *
> 3.
> 
> 
> 
> Is soil bulk density/compaction really the metric that we are trying to improve with aeration, or is it just a proxy for some other soil property, such as "penetrability"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, the improvement of bulk density is the traditional purpose of performing core aeration.
> Bulk density has been found to be directly associated with root growth. Result from penetrometer ("penetrability") testing (when properly performed)have been correlated to bulk density. What distinction do you find between bulk density and "penetrabiliy"? Are you suggesting that root growth ("penetrability") is unrelated to bulk density? What objective measurement for root impedance would you suggest as a better method in the alternative? * Bulk density is correlated to penetrability, but in reality bulk density is just being used as a proxy for compressibility. Lower bulk densities have more interstitial spaces, and therefore are easier to compress. So what I'm saying is I believe the desire to reduce bulk density is really a desire to improve the ability of roots to penetrate soil, and that any activity that improves that metric is probably beneficial (within reason), regardless of what is happening with bulk density. I really doubt that grass knows what the bulk density is of a soil, it just knows that roots grow easily or not. *
Click to expand...

 Basically, should I care about bulk density in and of itself, or am I REALLY interested in ability for water and roots to penetrate soil, bulk density be damned? It felt like in the video, bulk density was presented as a way to discredit liquid aeration, but there was no background whatsoever about why it is beneficial. The whole video had a vibe of "This car is better than that car because it has more cupholders and removeable floor mats", like, they both get me to work and have AC, I'm all set.

Please keep in mind, my comments are intended as thoughtful, not combative, so if they come off a different way I apologize.


----------



## davegravy

Pezking7p said:


> Ridgerunner said:
> 
> 
> 
> @Pezking7p I've been expecting you (well, your argument points).
> 
> 
> 
> adding a surfactant, which also increases capillary action and creates a moister/looser soil.
> 
> 
> 
> A couple of issues with your observations;
> 1. I suspect the presence of a surfactant (not a wetting agent) would likely interfere with capillary action. * I could be using the term capillary action somewhat incorrectly, but a surfactant (for soils) will decrease the interfacial energy between the soil and water, and thus increase the surface area between the two. The point I was making is that the ability for water to penetrate hard, dry soil is improved with a surfactant. This probably isn't true for ALL soils, though. *
> 2. your use of the term "looser." That was a major point of the video analysis of "liquid aerators". HOW do they make soil looser? (thegrassfactor proposes that there is no scientific based explaination that would result in a "looser" soil.) If root penetration is improved by the introduction of lubricants (the surfactant and water), How much reduction would be expected over a field capacity wetted soil? How often would the change be great enough to change soil resistance to root growth? Unfortunately, I've never seen research on these issues. * by "looser" I just meant that the individual soil particles are easier to move apart. Roots will have an easier time growing through dirt if it is easy to separate, instead of dry and hard. *
> 3.
> 
> 
> 
> Is soil bulk density/compaction really the metric that we are trying to improve with aeration, or is it just a proxy for some other soil property, such as "penetrability"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, the improvement of bulk density is the traditional purpose of performing core aeration.
> Bulk density has been found to be directly associated with root growth. Result from penetrometer ("penetrability") testing (when properly performed)have been correlated to bulk density. What distinction do you find between bulk density and "penetrabiliy"? Are you suggesting that root growth ("penetrability") is unrelated to bulk density? What objective measurement for root impedance would you suggest as a better method in the alternative? * Bulk density is correlated to penetrability, but in reality bulk density is just being used as a proxy for compressibility. Lower bulk densities have more interstitial spaces, and therefore are easier to compress. So what I'm saying is I believe the desire to reduce bulk density is really a desire to improve the ability of roots to penetrate soil, and that any activity that improves that metric is probably beneficial (within reason), regardless of what is happening with bulk density. I really doubt that grass knows what the bulk density is of a soil, it just knows that roots grow easily or not. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Basically, should I care about bulk density in and of itself, or am I REALLY interested in ability for water and roots to penetrate soil, bulk density be damned? It felt like in the video, bulk density was presented as a way to discredit liquid aeration, but there was no background whatsoever about why it is beneficial. The whole video had a vibe of "This car is better than that car because it has more cupholders and removeable floor mats", like, they both get me to work and have AC, I'm all set.
> 
> Please keep in mind, my comments are intended as thoughtful, not combative, so if they come off a different way I apologize.
Click to expand...

I don't think he made any statement about which car was better. The main message was that these people are selling a car and suggesting it has removeable floor mats, lots of cup holders, and maybe some more major features that it doesn't actually have. He didn't say you necessarily need those features or that you shouldn't buy the car.


----------



## dwaugh

I think he was too kind in suggesting that the products can do something.... It's clear surfactants can be useful under some circumstances (there is a literature on this), but it's not clear that the products are doing much for the people buying them.


----------



## Pezking7p

davegravy said:


> I don't think he made any statement about which car was better. The main message was that these people are selling a car and suggesting it has removeable floor mats, lots of cup holders, and maybe some more major features that it doesn't actually have. He didn't say you necessarily need those features or that you shouldn't buy the car.


I mean he did straight up call liquid aeration a scam, tell viewers that they've gotten the shaft, and conclude by saying that liquid aeration can't do what mechanical aeration can (which is true).

But my question is still just around the bulk density point. Is actual bulk density important, or is it just a proxy for how easily water and roots can penetrate a soil?


----------



## Ridgerunner

@Pezking7p I misunderstood your earlier post. I interpreted it as an argument not to use BD as a method for measuring compaction.
Again, the crux of the video is that liquid aerators do not relieve compacted soils and the effects of soil compaction (issues of diminished water movement/capacity, gas/air exchange, root growth: I.e. bulk density associated issues).
We've already discussed the dictionary definition of aeration: "to add air," and I thought, disposed of the propriety of applying that definition to the field of turf management. In turf management, the term aeration (core aeration) has traditional been inextricably associated with soil compaction reduction. As evidence thereof, do a search of this site for "compact*" and then search those results for "+aerat*". As of 2 days ago there were 2504 hits for "compact+" and 2504 hits containing both "compact*" and "+aerat*." 
Consequently, the use of the term within "liquid aeration" is unintentionally, or more likely intentionally (as many of the labels on these products reference the term compaction) implies compaction relief.
Bulk density is a valid method for determining soil compaction and measuring changes in compaction. It is what it is, as compaction relief is the topic at issue.


----------



## Pezking7p

@Ridgerunner 
Why is compaction important? What impact does it have on grass? If it's root growth and water availability, doesn't the surfactant do the same thing? There are an awful lot of studies about surfactants improving these two.

My question is still why is bulk density, or compaction, important?

EDIT: to make sure it's clear I genuinely do not have a dog in the fight. I literally just mechanically aerated my lawn and I just bought a surfactant that's I plan to put on my ditch banks this weekend. I just want to understand this debate and why we are concerned about BD/soil compaction. Like, at its core (no pun intended)


----------



## Ridgerunner

Pezking7p said:


> @Ridgerunner
> Why is compaction important? What impact does it have on grass?


Because...Compaction results in diminished water movement/storage, gas/air movement and root growth.

Compaction is important in this thread because compaction relief is a claim made either implicitly or explicitly by manufacturers of "liquid aerators" So...Do "liquid aerators" reduce compaction (bulk density) or not?



> There are an awful lot of studies about surfactants improving these two.


In compacted soil?
Could you provide links to some of the studies that showed reduced soil resistance to root growth/penetration in compacted soil due to an application of a surfactant. Thanks.


----------



## davegravy

Pezking7p said:


> @Ridgerunner
> Why is compaction important? What impact does it have on grass? If it's root growth and water availability, doesn't the surfactant do the same thing? There are an awful lot of studies about surfactants improving these two.
> 
> My question is still why is bulk density, or compaction, important?
> 
> EDIT: to make sure it's clear I genuinely do not have a dog in the fight. I literally just mechanically aerated my lawn and I just bought a surfactant that's I plan to put on my ditch banks this weekend. I just want to understand this debate and why we are concerned about BD/soil compaction. Like, at its core (no pun intended)


To answer that question I assume you need to ask:

What is the relative degree of improvement to ease of root penetration for surfactants versus mechanical aeration?

Same question for water availability.

Since surfactants don't improve oxygen exchange, how important is oxygen exchange compared to ease of root penetration and water availability?


----------



## dwaugh

This link is to someones Masters thesis, so it's clearly not peer reviewed, and I can not vouch for text. Generally a literate review is part of a theses, and taking this one at face value, it offers some interesting perspective. I didn't read the results, but the introduction page 1-13 are rather interesting. Page 7-8 seem to suggest that compaction can increase water retention and therefore decrease oxygen exchange. Although I can't confirm the quality of the literature review, it might be worth reading. https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/rtd/17475/


----------



## Pezking7p

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=soil+surfactant+root+growth&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart#d=gs_qabs&u=%23p%3DMSegb5W2pdgJ

https://sitzagnutrients.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/APSA-80-Soil-Compaction-Study.pdf

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=soil+surfactant+root+growth&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart#d=gs_qabs&u=%23p%3DdkEF5aVymIsJ

No? I don't have access to full articles, but they appear to help particularly around drought resistance.


----------



## Easyluck

Back to basics.

" Bulk density is an indicator of soil compaction. It is calculated as the dry weight of soil divided by its volume. This volume includes the volume of soil particles and the volume of pores among soil particles. Bulk density is typically expressed in g/cm3."

https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_053256.pdf

Bulk density = dry weight of soil / volume of soil.

To reduce bulk density either the numerator (dry weight of soil) needs to decrease or the denominator (volume of soil) needs to increase.

You are Given a yard of soil packed inside a truck bed.

How could one decrease the dry weight of soil without increasIng or decreasing the volume of space? Remove some soil and replace with something lighter (peat moss).

How could one increase the volume of space without decreasing or increasing the weight?
You could till the soil.


----------



## OnTheLawn

So JP said that Air-8 is being tested and they will be done the testing with results in 6-8 weeks. It was in one of his recent videos he talks about it and they will be looking at things like root growth, soil compaction, air/gas exchange, etc.


----------



## hammerhead

I guess a sand top dressing (without core aeration) in a clay soil would also be some kind of aeration since it lowers bulk density (at least in the top layer). It increases soil volume so weight/volume decreases. Who agrees?


----------



## Slingblade_847

Was looking at some Matt Martin videos, and all but said liquid aeration products are a scam. He also referenced the Colorado extension office and a few other articles. Here is a snap shot of the overall point he was making:



I found this interesting. Especially given he partners with websites and people who push these products. Glad he still provided his opinion which I think many of us appreciate.


----------



## Ridgerunner

FYI
https://thelawnforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=23155


----------



## scz71864

hammerhead said:


> I guess a sand top dressing (without core aeration) in a clay soil would also be some kind of aeration since it lowers bulk density (at least in the top layer). It increases soil volume so weight/volume decreases. Who agrees?


Iv believe I read once upon a time that adding sand to a clay soil hardens the soil in a concrete like manner
Edit: I found it 
https://extension.illinois.edu/blogs/good-growing/2018-01-31-does-sand-improve-clay-soil-drainage


----------



## g-man

@scz71864 sand on top of clay does not make concrete. You need portland cement to make concrete.

Most golf greens are sand on top of native soils. A lot of us do apply sand on top of our lawns to get a more leveled surface and improve some drainage. Don't try to till the sand with clay, that is very hard to do, let the earthworms do that over time.


----------



## scz71864

g-man said:


> @scz71864 sand on top of clay does not make concrete. You need portland cement to make concrete.
> 
> Most golf greens are sand on top of native soils. A lot of us do apply sand on top of our lawns to get a more leveled surface and improve some drainage. Don't try to till the sand with clay, that is very hard to do, let the earthworms do that over time.


I didn't say it makes actual concrete. I was referring to the article I posted below.


----------



## osuturfman

Here is a post I wrote several years back on how to test these products, very simply, versus a control.

https://thelawnforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=85864#p85864


----------



## dwaugh

osuturfman said:


> Here is a post I wrote several years back on how to test these products, very simply, versus a control.
> 
> https://thelawnforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=85864#p85864


I would have fun testing it, but I'm not going to buy 5 gallons of it to try it.


----------



## osuturfman

dwaugh said:


> osuturfman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a post I wrote several years back on how to test these products, very simply, versus a control.
> 
> https://thelawnforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=85864#p85864
> 
> 
> 
> I would have fun testing it, but I'm not going to buy 5 gallons of it to try it.
Click to expand...

You shouldn't have to. The manufacturer should sponsor the research.


----------



## eakatank

OnTheLawn said:


> So here's my take:
> 
> When we think of aeration, we think of removing cores from the soil. We think of something physical happening because that's the way it's been for as long as aeration has been a thing. Ultimately, to aerate something means to introduce air into a material. It doesn't mean "remove mass", it doesn't mean "decrease bulk density". It simply means to introduce air into a material. The cores are a byproduct of mechanical aeration, not the purpose. Decreasing bulk density is a byproduct of mechanical aeration, but not the purpose. It ultimately leads to the purpose it serves and the goal of mechanical aeration, which is to INTRODUCE AIR into the soil, but isn't the primary objective. It's the means to the end, but is just one way of achieving the goal.
> 
> So, to me, if liquid products can achieve that, then they are not a scam. The end result is what matters and as someone who has used a liquid aerating product, tested it in multiple plots with multiple control plots, and seen actual physical results in the reduction of soil compaction, which inherently leads to greater airflow in the soil, then I would say that the end result is very much the same. Different means, sure, but the end result gives you what the ultimate goal of aeration is.


Wow, this is precisely the thought process/logic I had as well. His title was a bit too click-baity for my liking. The meat of the video was certainly educational, but I'd agree with your comments @OnTheLawn. Aeration, whether done in a pond, a pastry filling, sewage, or lawn, technically means to increase/add air penetration to the mass - nothing more. If a liquid aeration product/wetting agent can accomplish that, is it a scam?


----------



## Grass Clippins

@eakatank Liquid aeration products/wetting agents can't increase/add air penetration to the mass. That was the whole point of his video. They encourage root aeration which increase/add air penetration to the mass.


----------



## dwaugh

Grass Clippins said:


> @eakatank Liquid aeration products/wetting agents can't increase/add air penetration to the mass. That was the whole point of his video. They encourage root aeration which increase/add air penetration to the mass.


Does that mean if I spread urea I'm actually using a granular aeration product?


----------



## Grass Clippins

@dwaugh :lol: Don't give GCF any ideas. I'm currently running a jug and urine and baby shampo through R&D.


----------



## VALawnNoob

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G72WUODjNJY

Is this the reply to liquid aeration is a scam? I'm not sure I fully understand the USDA link as it doesn't contradict anything MM has said or support the fact air8 really works. What is everyone else's take? :search:


----------



## Lawn Noob

VALawnNoob said:


> Is this the reply to liquid aeration is a scam? I'm not sure I fully understand the USDA link as it doesn't contradict anything MM has said or support the fact air8 really works. What is everyone else's take? :search:


The hipster Yoda vibe of this guy grates on me. That said, the video seemed like a way to protect his product line. In the end, he's basically advocating root cycling...which is what Matt said too. Roots will cycle without his products. Sun, water and nitrogen seem like the keys to me.


----------



## GangstaRIB

Lawn Noob said:


> VALawnNoob said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is this the reply to liquid aeration is a scam? I'm not sure I fully understand the USDA link as it doesn't contradict anything MM has said or support the fact air8 really works. What is everyone else's take? :search:
> 
> 
> 
> The hipster Yoda vibe of this guy grates on me. That said, the video seemed like a way to protect his product line. In the end, he's basically advocating root cycling...which is what Matt said too. Roots will cycle without his products. Sun, water and nitrogen seem like the keys to me.
Click to expand...

All liquid aerators are soap (period). Surfactants are basically soap... All of them.... Well at least the ones that appear to work are anyway. I'm sure there are some that aren't soap that just plain don't work at all.

Air8 is nothing special. It's humate soap. There are no magical bond fracturing BS like JP says in the video. KOH is lye and humic acid has oil in it. Soap is oil+lye. It's expensive soap! I'm not saying the product isn't completely worthless I just think you could use humic12 and hit your lawn with some surfactant a few times a year. I use surfactants when I spray N/K and PGRs so I'm already gaining that same effect. There is no need to buy the whole snack pack..... I think that is the part that annoys me. I still use humic 12. I also use microgreene and greenepunch in the summer time to spoon feed.

Soap/surfactants are a great tool and do help keep the soil uniformly moist but my take on that is there is no reason to spray them down separately. Just add some when you are spraying some fert. Or mix in some hydrotain.


----------



## GangstaRIB

Also what is going on with Carbon Earth? Anyone know? Website has some magical counter on it right now. I pretty much have fallen in love with the granules because once you water in the biochar/chicken crap the smell goes away. No other organic i have used has this same effect (XSOIL).

Not organic.... but I do like the XGRN as it seems to last a while AND disperses very well into the soil. Using biochar as a slow release mechanism is genius. I am doubtful the char itself has any long term benefits however. If the peptides come at a huge cost i think he should just leave them out. I also wish xsoil had the same prill as the x-green.

There may be a counter video from JP saying how peptides are total crap! LOL. I think its probably quite the hocus pocus....


----------



## Buffalolawny

Here in Aussie Land.

Farmers use "Liquid aeration" to help them pull out fence posts, tree stumps.
Also used to pull out advetising signs, traffic posts etc

Both Mechanical and Liquid aeration are two seperate things. But used together can have benefits.


----------



## ksturfguy

GangstaRIB said:


> Also what is going on with Carbon Earth? Anyone know? Website has some magical counter on it right now. I pretty much have fallen in love with the granules because once you water in the biochar/chicken crap the smell goes away. No other organic i have used has this same effect (XSOIL).
> 
> Not organic.... but I do like the XGRN as it seems to last a while AND disperses very well into the soil. Using biochar as a slow release mechanism is genius. I am doubtful the char itself has any long term benefits however. If the peptides come at a huge cost i think he should just leave them out. I also wish xsoil had the same prill as the x-green.
> 
> There may be a counter video from JP saying how peptides are total crap! LOL. I think its probably quite the hocus pocus....


I think the company got sold or went out of business. Matt hasnt really been able to talk about it on his podcast so not sure what happened.


----------



## VALawnNoob

Here is latest video on Air8:

https://youtu.be/kXuEVldW_q4


----------



## Lawn Noob

VALawnNoob said:


> Here is latest video on Air8:


So basically, it works as a wetting agent that didn't reduce bulk density. I thought we already knew that?


----------



## doverosx

Buffalolawny said:


> Here in Aussie Land.
> 
> Farmers use "Liquid aeration" to help them pull out fence posts, tree stumps.
> Also used to pull out advetising signs, traffic posts etc
> 
> Both Mechanical and Liquid aeration are two seperate things. But used together can have benefits.


And that is exactly what is indicated by the results from the Air8 University study.


----------



## johnklein25

I went ahead and jumped on the NEXT product train (I could regret it later). My feeling so far is that 18-0-1 is a good product. My opinions on Air8, RGS, Microgreen and floro green are still forming (I know I didn't spell that right, and I don't care). I'm using Air8 in conjunction with mechanical aeration in trouble spots. I just did a long winded post about my backyard situation - would love to get some input/feedback on it.

https://thelawnforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=28267


----------



## johnklein25

Also will add that I'm about done with Lawncare youtube and trying to figure own which ones I might keep watching. I really do like TGF because Matt is well educated and keeps it honest I'm still getting some good tips here and there from other youtubers but I think I'm about done with most of them. I get that they're trying to make money but there was a point when I reallized that I was watching infomercials for entertainment and got fairly upset with myself. The private labeling and custom blends and brand creation is getting a bit out of control in my opinion.


----------



## sandstorm

johnklein25 said:


> Also will add that I'm about done with Lawncare youtube and trying to figure own which ones I might keep watching. I really do like TGF because Matt is well educated and keeps it honest I'm still getting some good tips here and there from other youtubers but I think I'm about done with most of them. I get that they're trying to make money but there was a point when I reallized that I was watching infomercials for entertainment and got fairly upset with myself. The private labeling and custom blends and brand creation is getting a bit out of control in my opinion.


I think I'm just about at that point as well. When they start acting like the products they push are the be all, end all and cannot be replaced with something else (that you might buy without their affiliate link), it all feels too much like an infomercial, regardless if you enjoy the rest of the content.


----------



## tneicna

It sounds 'too good to be true'

But the most troubling thing is noting a university RCT in the description, but not providing a citation/DOI/etc to the study.

Does it almost seem like they are trying to get people to buy it based on a study that doesn't seem to be out - or preprinted - or even exists?


----------



## Buffalolawny

There is studies and uni documentation in Australia. The problem is that we don't have a thing called an extension office like American Uni's to publicly find info. You have to be a current student and be enrolled at that agricultural uni to get any info. If I can find some I'll post.


----------



## DeepC

I just briefly heard on the radio some guy called "The Dirt Doctor" said using hydrogen peroxide will aerate compacted clay soil. He said it adds another oxygen atom which relieves the compaction. Is that for real or bogus?


----------



## doverosx

I got to the point of no longer watching all sorts of youtubers; why? When I see LCN release a video I could then say, "and now to watch 15 other YouTubers talk about this new cheap Chinese product".

I watch you guys for the Lawn CARE, for the community and for knowledge but now I'm mostly sceptical of it all. I have a science background and hear ever growing Bull cra^} being regurgitated.

Hydrogen peroxide "adding an oxygen molecule" is way too simplistic to what is happening or not happening in the medium. The context is probably the most important part and an expert will give you that context. Listen to how Ryan, rey and Matt develop the contextual information BEFORE they provide advice.

On the side note. The green county products are great and at the very least economical compared to the big box store products. With GCF fert I can get a season of nitrogen but with the vigoro stuff I'm getting one application of a spin feeding amount and that's at $20+.


----------



## davegravy

DeepC said:


> I just briefly heard on the radio some guy called "The Dirt Doctor" said using hydrogen peroxide will aerate compacted clay soil. He said it adds another oxygen atom which relieves the compaction. Is that for real or bogus?


Does it result in decreased bulk density? I believe it has an exothermic reaction with salts... foams up like baking soda and vinegar. Is this release of energy sufficient mechanical force to move soil particles and decrease density? I suspect not to a significant degree, but it's possible.


----------

