A question came up not too long ago with a customer of one of our lawn care companies using SoilTech.  That customer was reluctant to try SoilTech out because he read on the internet that “Liquid Aeration” doesn’t work and it is a hoax.  So I was asked to speak with this person about this and to go into more detail and this is what I told him.

99% of all products that you will see out there that claim to reduce soil compaction fall under the category of either a surfactant, penetrant, or wetting agent.  These very similar products do one main thing, to lower the surface tension of water.  What that does is that it allows the water to easily penetrate very compacted soils and makes the soil wet.  This makes everyone think, “the soil is now wet and water is able to soak into the soil, then the compaction must be gone.”  Well, not really.

To actually relieve compaction in your soil you need to change the soil structure or make smaller soil particles into larger soil particles.  This can be done by adding amendments like sand or by applying SoilTech.  By applying those other types of products you are getting some temporary relief but will not actually fix the problem of soil compaction like SoilTech will.

SoilTech is a blend of polyelectrolytes and organic acids and is in no way similar to products stated above.  These other types of products are actually very useful in certain situations and have a place in turf management but they do not relieve soil compaction.  Now you know the difference.

Question:

What effect does SoilTech have on turf cover and density, and turf color and color consistency which may contribute to the overall appearance of lawns?

Purpose:

This investigation was designed to determine if the application of SoilTech substantially improved the overall appearance of lawns enough to justify the application of the product. Soil scientists agree that compacted soils impact plant growth and health in many ways. This investigation was conducted approximately 60 days after SoilTech application and near the end of the summer where daytime temperatures for 2003 exceeded 100 degrees at least 18 times.

Test Sites:

SoilTech was applied to over 500 lawns by a large lawn care company at the rate of 4 oz per 1000 sq. ft. This company has seven branch locations throughout Oklahoma. These customers specifically requested the SoilTech application as an alternative to mechanical core aeration. One hundred and forty seven test sites were selected at random from the list of customers who requested the application, representing all seven locations.

Tests Performed:

Turf Cover:

Turf cover was evaluated by using a 36 sq. in. quadrat frame sampler with ten random repetitions per site. The total square inches of exposed soil was measured then subtracted from 36. This difference was then divided by 36 to determine the percent cover. The outcome represents an averaged result. The check was measured on the adjacent untreated area. The results were then assigned by using the following key:

The Turf Cover investigation supports user claims that SoilTech increases turf cover. The results clearly illustrate the high turf cover percentage following application. As reported, 72.1% of the treated lawns had between 95-100% turf cover on their lawn. The check (adjacent lawns) had only 16.3% with 95-100% cover. The average cover for the SoilTech lawns was 93.5%.

Turf Shoot Density:

Turf shoot density was evaluated by randomly selecting ten repetitions per site. At each site 1.0 sq. in. was measured by counting the total number of shoots. Shoots are the stems that originate from the soil. Only shoots that had blades attached were counted. These ten sites were averaged for the final result. The check was counted on the adjacent untreated area. The results were then applied using the following key:

The Turf Shoot Density investigation supports user claims that SoilTech increases turf density. Again the results clearly illustrate the high turf density after SoilTech application. As reported 75.6% of the treated lawns had turf density over 4.4 shoots per sq. in. The untreated lawns had only 13.3% of the lawns over 4.4 shoots per sq. in. This investigation supports the users’ claims that SoilTech increases turf density.

Turf Tissue Color:

Turf color was evaluated by using the Munsell Color Charts for Plant Tissues. This method of color determination provides an exact match of the color of turf tissues. Ten random samples from the treated lawn and ten random samples from adjacent untreated area were matched for color.

The complete Munsell notation is written: Hue Value/Chroma

Three Classes of Hue:7.5 GY          Dark Green Color5 GY             Medium Green Colors2.5 GY          Pale Green to Yellow

Healthy plant tissue for Bermuda and Fescue turf grass is indicated in decreasing quality:

Plant tissue stress for Bermuda and Fescue grass is indicated in increasing severity by:

The Turf Tissue Color was designed to determine if SoilTech makes lawns greener than untreated lawns. The lawn care company using SoilTech was especially concerned about this since they depend on satisfied customers within an extremely competitive market. They strive to have the best yard in the area so as to maintain the excellent reputation they currently have. The results strongly indicate that SoilTech promotes greener lawns than the untreated lawns. A major reason for doing the investigation late in the summer was to compare SoilTech in the most extreme climate conditions. Major differences in color were noted as shown in the results section. Only one treated yard was in plant stress as compared to 14 untreated lawns. Review the results section again to compare the treated vs. untreated.

Turf Color Consistency:

Turf color consistency was determined by calculating the areas of color that were significantly less than the sampled Munsell Color Chart Rating for that particular lawn. These areas generally show up as “hot spots” or areas where severely compacted soils or other factors such as uneven watering or underlying parent material is near the surface. As noted above, this investigation occurred at the end of August 2003 following at least 18 days that exceeded 100 degrees F. Oklahoma summers (and especially this particular summer) are normally dry with little rain. The lack of adequate rainfall combined with extremely high daytime temperatures will induce severe stress on most lawns, even when irrigated. For this reason, this test included only lawns treated with SoilTech, because the untreated lawns in most cases had such severe stress that proper measurement of “hot spots” was very difficult. The sq. ft. of the area (in most cases the front lawn) minus the “hot spots” divided by the total area equals the “Turf Color Consistency” for the lawn. (e.g. front lawn = 1800 sq. ft minus the “hot spot” of 260 sq. ft. divided by 1800 =86% Turf Color Consistency). The values then were placed into the key as follows:

Value  Lawns Result:           

100% = 95-100       93      63.7%

90% = 85- 94          15      10.3%

80% = 75-84           20      13.7%

70% = 65-74           6        4.1%

60% = 55-64           4        2.7%

50% = 45-54           7        4.8%

40% = 35-44           1        0.7%

Average Turf Color Consistency: 91.1%

The Turf Color Consistency investigation supports user claims that SoilTech maintains consistent color throughout the lawn. This is not surprising in that when soil has been “aerated” many changes occur. Nutrients that were locked up are now released. Atmospheric oxygen and nitrogen diffuse into the soil thus increasing microbial activity converting raw elements into a usable plant food source. Water management improves by the increased pore space with soil that is now less compacted. The results indicate that the average turf color consistency after SoilTech application is 91.1%. Having consistency this high in late August is very encouraging. No evaluation on the untreated lawns was done mainly because the “hot spots” were too numerous and widespread making precise measurements very difficult. Photos of lawn comparisons help illustrate the difference of treated vs untreated lawns. Click here to go to the photo section.

Qualitative Assessment:

A qualitative assessment of the lawns was performed to compare the treated lawns with 20-30 lawns in the surrounding area. The assessments were made by walking through the area and making comparisons of turf cover, density, color, and color consistency. This assessment is crucial for professional lawn care applicators who depend on quality lawns in a competitive market. Ratings were then assigned to the treated lawn as shown below.Best Yard                62      41.9%Tied for Best           22      14.9%Second Best            7        4.7%Top 90%                 16      10.8%Top 80%                 7        4.7%Top 70%                 7        4.7%Top 50%                 7        4.7%Total: 86.4%

This assessment supports the claim by users that the application of SoilTech improves the health and overall appearance of their lawns.

Conclusion:

Each of the four tests supports the claims by users that SoilTech increases turf cover and makes lawns greener and thicker than before application. This investigation was performed in seven cities of Oklahoma: Lawton, Oklahoma City & Edmond, Enid, Stillwater, Ponca City, Bartlesville, and Tulsa & Broken Arrow. The tests were conducted on sandy loam, clay loam, gumbo, silty clay, and clay soils.

The following data is the result of a field test performed in 2005 at Belmar Golf Club in Norman, Oklahoma to determine the effects of SoilTech liquid, organic aeration on heavy red clay found on the golf course.

Brett Proctor, Golf Course superintendent at Belmar, had used SoilTech on some heavily compacted gumbo clay soil at his previous golf course in 2004. He saw positive results in turf quality and soil compaction. As the new superintendent at Belmar, Brett decided to apply SoilTech to his red clay fairways, since he had seen good results with it previously. In June, 2005, before applying SoilTech, a 2″ diameter core was taken 4″ deep in an area on the #10 fairway. He sent that core sample to the International Sports Turf Research Center in Olathe, KS. ISTRC is an independent and well-respected soil physical properties lab that does work on thousands of golf courses around the world.

90 days after the application of SoilTech (in September, 2005,) another core sample was taken from within 3 feet of the previous sample. That core was also sent to ISTRC so the results could be compared to the sample taken prior to application of SoilTech. Following is a summary of those amazing lab results!

Test Results:  

Below is the original data sheet from ISTRC, and remember that Turf2Max is the same product as SoilTech.

The below is a picture of the core sample at the test site before treatment.  Notice the dried out color and the smooth sides suggesting compaction.

This picture is of cores taken 3 months after SoilTech was applied. Notice the change of color in the soil, that change is due to better air and water penetration into the soil.

SoilTech is manufactured by Houston Brothers Inc. (DBA Soil Restoration Technologies), Bixby, OK. The product is a clear liquid consisting of 11 polymers used for improving soil structure by reducing sodium. The study described below was conducted in the laboratory at Advanced Microbial Solutions, Pilot Point, TX. The purpose of the study was to evaluate the potential for SoilTech to release sodium and total salts from soil exchange sites for subsequent leaching.

Experimental Design:

Sodium and salts extraction:

Soil was collected from an irrigated peanut field in west Texas that was experiencing salinity problems (see analysis below). The soil was air-dried, screened through a 2 mm mesh screen, and stored in 30-gallon plastic trash cans.

 Soil Nutrient Content (ppm)

P1¹ and P2 are Bray 1 and Bray 2 phosphorous extraction methods.

P1¹ is readily available P (weak acid extraction). P2 is less available P (strong acid extraction).

One hundred (100) g of air-dry field soil was placed into plastic 100 mL sterile containers. There were five replications for each of the two treatments. Seven (7.0) mL of sterile deionized water was applied to moisten the soil. Then 10.0 mL of sterile deionized water containing either 0.75 mL of SoilTech, or 10.0 mL of sterile water only for the controls, was applied to the soil surface. The total volume (17.0 mL) of solution brought the soil moisture content to 70% of maximum field capacity. The soil test units were maintained at 70% field capacity for 30 days with the addition of sterile deionized water applied as needed based on weight determinations. After 30 days, the soil was removed from the containers, air dried and thoroughly mixed prior to electrical conductivity (EC) determinations patterned after recommendations by Rhoades (1996) and sodium (Na) extraction based on Helmke and Sparks (1996). From each replication, two 25 g air-dry soil sub-samples were removed; one 25 g sample for each EC and Na measurement.

EC was determined by placing 25 g of air dry soil in a 125 mL Erlenmeyer flask; adding 100 mL of sterile deionized water; shaking for 30 minutes on a rotary shaker at 250 rpm; allowing the solution to settle for 30 minutes; then gravity filtering the solution through a Whatman #2V filter paper. The clear extract solution (25 degree C) received 2 drops of a 0.1% sodium hexametaphosphate solution prior to EC measurement. EC measurements were made using a Hach CO150 Conductivity Meter and reported as µS/cm.

Sodium determinations were made using a 25 g subsample from the original 100 g from each replication. As with the EC measurements, there were 5 replications per treatment. The 25 g soil sample was placed in a 125 mL Erlenmeyer flask; 100 mL of a neutral 1.0 M ammonium acetate solution was added; then the mixture was shaken on a rotary shaker for 30 minutes at 250 rpm; allowed to settle for 60 minutes with the flask at a slight incline; then filtered through a Whatman #40 filter paper under vacuum. Fifty mL of the clear solution from each replication was adjusted to a pH of 9.0 using 0.8 g of a Hach Ionic Strength Adjustor powder (magnesium sulfate and Tris (hydroxymethyl) – aminomethane). Na concentrations were determined while stirring using a Hach, Model 51925 Platinum Series Combination Sodium (ion specific) Electrode, and Hach EC10 pH Meter. Readings were recorded when the meter drift stabilized at < 1 mV/minute. Sodium concentrations in the extract solution were based on a standard curve (mV vs. mg/L Na) prepared from known Na standards and reported as mg Na/L. For both EC and Na measurements, the replicated data were evaluated for statistical significance using a one-way ANOVA. Significant (P <0.05), differences between treatment means were separated using Studentized Range tables and calculated LSD values.

Results:

Soil salinity testing:

The ability to extract sodium from the soil was significantly increased in the treatments containing SoilTech.

Table 3: Sodium extraction and electrical conductivity of extracts from soil treated with SoilTech, as compared to the untreated control.

Table values are a mean of 5 replications per treatment. Values not sharing the same letter are significantly different.

Conclusions:

SoilTech significantly increased the ability to extract sodium and total salts from treated soil as compared to the untreated control. These data suggest that Turf2Max (SoilTech) can aid in the release of sodium and other salts from soil exchange sites thus enabling them to be leached away from plant root systems by irrigation or rain water. This will help to reduce the effects salinity stress on plants and improve soil structure.

References:

Rhodes, J.D. 1996. Salinity: Electrical Conductivity and Total Dissolved Solids. In: Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 3, Chemical Methods. Soil Science Society of America, Inc., Madison, WI USA pp 417-435/

Heimke, P.A. and D.L. Sparks. 1996. Lithium, Sodium, Potassium, Rubidium and Cesium. In: Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 3, Chemical Methods. Soil Science Society of America, Inc., Madison , WI USA . pp 551-574.

Understanding the Testing and Results – By Soil Technologies, LLC

These statements of findings tell you that SoilTech extracts or removes sodium and total salts from the soil. When you look at the results table, it shows that SoilTech REMOVED FROM THE SOIL 175.0 mg Na/L versus 85.6 mg Na/L for the control. Why did the control also remove sodium although not nearly as much, because he used deionzied water (pure water) to flush out the Na and other salts. The recognized technique is to flush out the sodium and other salts, however they do not use deionized water. They use whatever is available, and almost always where you already have a sodicity and or salinity problem, the irrigation water is not much better. So you need to look at the extracted amounts to see the incredible difference between treatment and the control. Again I emphasize the control was deionzied water. A true control would be the irrigation water for that site, which would probably make things worse for the control than better.

The test has been determined to be both significant at the 95% confidence level and at the 99% confidence level. Any test that surpassed the 95% confidence level is considered valid and defensible. The statistical model used is called “Least Significant Difference” or LSD. As you can see Dr. Ames calculated the statistics (all the results and replications) at both the LSD .05 and LSD .01. The .05 value of 8.8 mg Na/L means that if the test results would have been equal or less than 8.8 the test would be ruled not significant and no positive results can be determined. You take the difference of 175.0 – 85.6 = 89.4 which greatly exceeds the 8.8. The confidence level that this test is significant is 95%. LSD of .05 is the standard that researchers use to determine product efficacy. Dr. Ames also applied the LSD of .01 and again SoilTech(SoilTech) exceeded that. If SoilTech extracted less than 10.8 mg Na from the sample it would not be ruled significant at the 99% confidence level. This is a high standard of probability that we exceeded by a large margin. All of this applies to the total salts (EC) as well.

When you significantly remove Na and Total Salts from the soil, you not only decrease compaction, but you also increase the ability of the soil to retain nutrients. Why? Because when the salts are reduced, other beneficial nutrients will then occupy the exchange sites that have been freed up by the removal of the Na and total salts.

Note: Dr Ames added the statement at the very end since the first draft came. “These data suggest that SoilTech can aid in the release of sodium and other salts from soil exchange sites thus enabling them to be leached away from plant root systems by irrigation or rain water. This will help to reduce the effects salinity stress on plants and improve soil structure.”

Introduction:

This test was performed to investigate whether the use of  SoilTech improves grass shoot density (thickness of turf,) root depth, and blade color in Bermuda grass in Oklahoma clay soil conditions.

Purpose:

To compare and determine the effectiveness of  SoilTech and standard chemical fertilizer used together, versus standard chemical fertilizers only, being used on Arizona Bermuda grass in clay soil conditions.

Test Site:

Three 200 square feet test sites were selected in full sun exposure.

Tests Performed:

On April 25, 1999, the following tests for each plot were conducted.

Grass Root Depth – It is generally assumed that observing grass root depth by length and by growth pattern can indicate if there is a compacted soil challenge.  A two foot hole was dug leaving one side free of shovel marks.  Masses of roots running horizontal and also the absence of roots below certain depths were observed.

Grass Shoot Density – It is assumed that turf density can be affected by compacted clay soils. The number of turf shoots per square inch was counted. Twenty random samples within each plot were counted to give an average result.

Grass Blade Color – Observation of grass blade coloration was observed to help assess the general health of the turf.

On October 15, 1999, the same tests as described above were performed on each of the test sites.

Control:

Three applications of 20-5-10 (N-P-K) fertilizer were applied on May 1, 1999, July 1, 1999, and September 1, 1999. The grass was irrigated on each of the test sites with an equal quantity of water throughout the testing period on a regular basis.

Application:

On May 1, 1999, SoilTech was applied at the dilution rate of 2 oz. SoilTech per 1 gallon of water at a coverage rate of 4 oz. SoilTech per 1000 square feet to test sites #2 and #3. The first fertilizer application as described above was applied to all three test sites. Nothing else was added except 1/4″ of water to all three test sites. On May 10, 1999, a second application of SoilTech was applied to test site #3 at the same rate as above. All three sites were watered 1/4″.

Test Results:

Grass Root Depth:

Site #1- Fertilizer Only

Average root depth increase – 28%

Site #2 – fertilizer and one application of SoilTech

Average root depth increase – 178%

Site #3 – fertilizer and two applications of SoilTech

Average root depth increase – 164%

Grass Root Depth:

Site #1 – Fertilizer Only

Grass shoot density increase of 18%

Site #2 – Fertilizer and one application of SoilTech

Grass shoot density increase of 138%

Site #3 – Fertilizer and two applications of SoilTech

Grass shoot density increase of 163%

Grass Blade Color: April 25

The observed coloration of all three sites is equal. The general health of the turf was average with a light green color with no yellowing except around the lower shoot areas. The soil is partially exposed with a few small bare areas.

Grass Blade Color: October 15

Site #1: It is quite apparent at first glance the difference in coloration between Site #1 and the other two sites. The coloration varies from a light yellow to a light green with a few areas of moderate green hue. The shoots are light yellow in appearance to a light green. The turf has a stressed appearance and the blades are finer in appearance. A few small bare areas are present, as well as several areas of thin turf density.

Site #2: This site is adjacent to Site #1, and the difference is remarkable. The coloration is dark green with little variation in color. The shoots are thicker than in Site #1 and are moderately green to dark green. The turf is noticeably thicker and healthier in appearance. No bare ground is seen anywhere on Site #2.

Site #3: This site is indistinguishable from Site #2 in appearance. It is adjacent to Site #2 and only the marker between them separates the two.

Interpretation:

The three tests performed for this project support the effectiveness of SoilTech on clay soils. These tests indicate substantial increase in grass shoot density and root depth. It is widely believed that as the root goes, so goes the plant. The root mass was not measured in this test project, but visual examination of the roots show that Site #1 had considerably less root mass than either Site #2 or Site #3. Rhizome development was considerably more prominent in the two sites treated with SoilTech. As noted above, the general health of the turf of Site #1 versus Site#2 and #3 is obvious by visual examination.

Conclusion:

The application of SoilTech on clay soil conditions in Oklahoma has substantially improved grass shoot density, root depth, and blade color on Arizona Bermuda grass.

Question:

Does a standard application of SoilTech reduce the rate of soil water evaporation?

Purpose:

Water conservation is an important factor when scheduling irrigation for lawns, sports complexes, gardens, and flowerbeds. Actual users of SoilTech consistently report significant reduction in water usage within 60 days of application. Reports range from 33-67% reduction.

Materials and Methods:

Oklahoma Chandler Clay and Bixby Sandy Loam were treated with just water and also with water and SoilTech. The moisture content of each sample was adjusted to 25%, and 2 kilograms of soil were placed in two-liter beakers. These beakers were kept in a greenhouse and were weighed everyday to document the rate of water evaporation from each sample. Ten replications of each test were performed to achieve an average result.

Test Results:

Soil Water Evaporation in a 15-Day Period – Oklahoma Chandler Clay

Soil Water Evaporation in a 15-Day Period – Bixby Sandy Loam

Conclusion:

This test supports a significant reduction of water evaporation in both Oklahoma Chandler Clay and Bixby Sandy Loam. SoilTech aids in conditioning clay soils with a no-till soil preparation method that helps reduce water evaporation. This study supports the claim that SoilTech contributes to water conservation in clay and sandy soils. Commercial and individual users of SoilTech consistently reported being able to water less and still maintain turf color and growth. Arrowhead Sports Complex in Broken Arrow Oklahoma realized a 67% reduction in water evaporation within 60 days of SoilTech application.

Question:

Does one standard application of SoilTech reduce soil compaction on a wide scale, enough to justify a large lawn care company (over 20,000 customers) to apply as a standard application each year for every customer?

Purpose:

This test will help determine if it is feasible for a large lawn lawn care company to apply SoilTech to every customer’s lawn, over a wide range of soil conditions.

Test Sites:

Two hundred twenty two (222) test sites were selected at random from the customer list.

Control:

One standard application of SoilTech was applied at the label rate on each of the test sites. Two measurements for soil compaction were taken, one at the time of application and the other 8 weeks after application. Each site was marked and recorded.

Application:

On July 16, 2002 each site was treated with the standard application of SoilTech. The standard rate is 4oz SoilTech diluted 60:1 per 1000 square feet.

Tests Performed:

On July 16, 2002, before the application of SoilTech, a soil compaction test was performed on each site. Two measurements were taken at each site, the first one at the 3″ depth and the second at the 6″ depth. The method used was a soil compaction gauge that measures penetration resistance in pounds per square inch. On September 16, 2002 a second soil compaction test was performed on each site at the 3″ depth and at the 6″ depth.

Test Results:

Two hundred twenty-two tests were performed at both the 3″ and 6″ depth.

• Average soil compaction at the 3″ depth was 187 pounds per square inch BEFORE application.
• Average soil compaction at the 3″ depth was 107 pounds per square inch 8 weeks AFTER application.
• Average soil compaction reduction was 80 pounds per square inch.  Average reduction in soil compaction was 43%.
• Average soil compaction at the 6″ depth was 239 pounds per square inch BEFORE application.
• Average soil compaction at the 6″ depth was 170 pounds per square inch 8 weeks AFTER application.
• Average soil compaction reduction was 68 pounds per square inch.  Average reduction in soil compaction was 29%.

Summary of Test Results:

3″ Soil Depth

6″ Soil Depth

Interpretation:

The data suggests that the more compacted the soil, the more effective SoilTech is in reducing compaction. At both the 3″ and 6″ depth, these tests demonstrate a direct relationship between severity of compaction and the result after treatment. The soil compaction tests prove the effectiveness of SoilTech on a wide range of soil conditions. The high number of repetitions and using two depths substantiate the usefulness of SoilTech on a broad scale.

Conclusion:

The application of SoilTech on a wide range of soil conditions has substantially reduced soil compaction enough to justify a large lawn care company in Oklahoma to apply the product on every customer each year as a routine application. This test supports the claim that SoilTech reduces soil compaction.

Question:

Does the application of SoilTech on turf afflicted with Spring Dead Spot (SDS) accelerate turf recovery during the growing season?

Purpose:

To compare and determine the effectiveness of SoilTech on areas afflicted with SDS, versus standard fertilizer practices without SoilTech application.

Test Site:

All Star Sports Complex is a nationally recognized Boys Baseball Complex. Each year starting the week of the 4th of July, there are three consecutive Little League World Series Tournaments, each lasting for one week. Before and after the tournaments, constant use of the fields impacts the turf, thereby creating a huge challenge for turf maintenance. The Turf Manager maintains a large staff of workers to constantly maintain all of the fields.

The Turf Manager was very interested in trying SoilTech to help maintain turf quality throughout the heavy use season. He was particularly interested because of the increased challenge of the SDS affliction.   He wanted to see if SoilTech could expedite turf recovery in the affected areas. It is crucial for the complex to provide high quality playing areas in light of the large national tournaments.

Two baseball outfields (Tifway Bermuda) affected by SDS were selected for the test. Each field had moderate SDS affliction, with afflicted spots ranging from 12″ up to 30″ across. The unaffected areas are in very good condition as far as turf quality, due to excellent cultural practice. The outfield of Field 6 was used as the treated site, and the adjacent outfield of Field 7 as the untreated site.

Control:

All fields were mowed and irrigated on a consistent, equal basis. Fertilization was applied by a lawn care company throughout the growing season.

Application:

On May 13, 2001 SoilTech was applied at the dilution rate of 2 oz. SoilTech per 1 gallon of water at a coverage rate of 4 oz. SoilTech per 1000 square feet to Field 6.  Irrigation of 1/4″ immediately followed the SoilTech application.

Results:

On June 13th, 2001 a visual inspection of Field 6 and Field 7 demonstrated a remarkable difference in SDS recovery. All of the visible affected areas were 95-100% recovered on Field 6. The affected turf on Field 7 was recovering, but at a much slower rate. Approximately 50-75% of the afflicted areas on Field 7 had recovered. The Turf Manager made a decision to go ahead and treat Field 7, Field 1, and all of the infields to enhance turf quality before the three large tournaments.

On July 2, 2001 a visual inspection of Field 6 indicated a full recovery from SDS. Field 7 demonstrated a 90-95% recovery on this date.

Conclusion:

No claim is made that SoilTech will cure or prevent SDS, but the application of SoilTech on afflicted turf areas can speed up the recovery process during the growing season. Further tests are planned to examine if SoilTech can help prevent recurrence of SDS.

The application of SoilTech should allow garden tillers to break up soil more easily when gardening flowers, plants and vegetables. Plant seed germination increases which makes planting grass seed along with flowers, plants and vegetables more productive.

Radishes, carrots, and kidney beans were grown in a greenhouse under controlled conditions. The results recorded in Tables 1, 2, and 3 demonstrate the observed improvements in plant seed germination and yields from the use of SoilTech.

Table 1: Growth of Radishes in Bixby, OK Sandy Loam Soil

Table 2: Effect on Plant Seed Germination for Carrots and Kidney Beans on Bixby, OK Sandy Loam Soil

Growth of Carrots in Oklahoma Chandler Clay Soil

SoilTech has been particularly useful in treating fields under cultivation in which plants are growing or are newly transplanted, or in freshly seeded soils. By treating the areas immediately around the growing plants or planted seeds, effective aggregation of these critical areas can be accomplished without using SoilTech on the non-productive areas.

Users of SoilTech consistently report that flowers are brighter and garden vegetables such as onions, carrots, squash, beans, corn, tomatoes, potatoes and peppers are healthier, larger, and taste better.

This test supports the claim that SoilTech increases plant seed germination which aids in planting grass seed along with gardening, flowers, and plants. SoilTech should allow the use of garden tillers to be easier, requiring less time and effort.

Here at Soil Technologies we always like to say “Healthy Soils, Greener Grass” since everything starts, literally, from the ground up.  If your soils have the right ratio of water, air, and soil, proper nutrients, and abundant microbial activity, you can grow anything.  And of course SoilTech soil amendment is certainly a tool that you can use to achieve that.

There is another aspect to what healthy soils bring, a healthy environment.  The link below goes to an article from one of my favorite websites, and one you will see a lot of on our blog posts, Science Daily.  The title is “Key to cleaner environment may be right beneath our feet” and I couldn’t agree more.  The article gives us a reminder that the soil is much more than the medium that we grow plants in but it is a filtration system for much of the water we use.  Up to 60% of the fresh water on the planet is stored in the soil and aquifers, and the reason it is so clean is due to the soil.

So remember healthey soils will not only give you greener grass but also clean water too.