Short or Long

Hi

I have always favoured leaving the grass about 1 to 1 1/2 inches long as I thought this would aid wear. I am not looking for bowling green, just something that will look neat and be nice for sitting/laying on and take me trampling it while walking around the garden, hanging washing etc.

Thing is that I have re-laid the grass over the past few years and now it doesn't seem to be thickening up and I am wondering whether cutting shorter may help promote thickening. Or even do I let it grow uncut for a year?

Or should I be feeding aggressively. I look at meadow grass and think - no one looks after that and it is never patchy or thin.

I had hoped that by removing the many stones under the grass that it would grow better than previously.

Any thoughts?

Thanks

Neil

 

Hi Neil

If your lawn is looking a bit skimpy, cutting it shorter won't improve it. It's not like the pruning process which can stimulate growth in many shrubs and trees. I suspect that your lawn is just a bit hungry and so I'd give it a proprietary feed and see how it responds. Any grass should perk up with a good dose of nitrogen and plenty of water. And keep mowing as normal, leaving it uncut for a year would allow the coarse grasses to dominate.

 

My lawn was looking sparce for years, always had trouble with, never cut it short as it used to yellow etc. Then a greenkeeper mate came toi have a look and told me i was cuttting to high !!!

Lowered it to about 3/4" and kept it that height, it did not like it at first but cutting more regular and shorter has made a massive difference. It has filled out and looks much healthier.

He told me it need to be short so it sends out side shoots ?

I have a thread here somewhere.