Wow, that's great news about Espoma products. I checked out their website and it looks like all the Tones now contain the bacillus formula and are all organic. It is important to note that only the Bio-tone also contains the mycorrhizae. The Bio-Tone Plus has an analysis of 4-3-3. It contains a lot of the same organics as the other Tones. I think there is controversy over the benefits of adding mycorrhizae to the soil as there are lots of types and most are species specific. I suppose if you have really "dead" soil it couldn't hurt to add some at planting time, I know it has to come into contact with the roots to be effective. I tend to over-insure my plants' survival and so I'm trying it for the first time. The first time I heard about mycorrhizae's benefits was when I was planting over 100 Balsam Fir seedlings and I was told by the nurseryman to add lots of peat to the soil to ensure the presence of mycorrhizae. I don't know if that's sound science but I didn't take a chance and added the peat. Now I seem to hear a lot about it. I'm trying to establish a prairie planting and there are some prairie plant nurseries that only grow their seedlings with a certain type of mycorrhizae. And I think Monrovia touts that it only uses container mix with mycorrhizae. I think I'll be using it whenever I make a new bed or plant a new rose. I don't think it'd be useful in an established garden.

Well, of course the nitrogen isn't going to affect the decomposition of leaves on the studies you present, rdak. The studies were done on grass of and under the conditions of golf courses if those are the studies I'm familiar with. You know, the grass that probably gets the most pesticides and fungicides on the planet. The nitrogen doesn't do the breaking down in cold compost environments such as lawns or greens. It aids the fungus that breaks down those leaves. The fungus usually destroyed or inhibited greatly by the fungicides applied to high maintenance turf areas. Plus, the guy that wrote the article specializes (and even has authored a book) in golf course maintenance, so that leads me to believe it's the same studies, too. If he included all info, which he didn't nor did he claim to, then I would be blasting the article for a complete ignorance of using the scientific method for a truly scientific study. Unless you manage your lawn like a golf course, then the first two studies aren't for you. Further indication that the first two studies were on high maintenance areas would be that in paragraph 8 where he states that the third study was different because it was on a low maintenance area. As far as the third study, I'm curious how many studies use the words "tend" as a measurable observation and how one quantifies this. Since he did the study (not mentioned int he article, I noticed) and provided good detail in the rest, one is definitely left to assume that "tended to green-up quicker" was a personal opinion that couldn't be presented in a factual manner. When I said "chemical means to manage your lawn", keep in mind I was specifically speaking of the fungicides and pesticides that people use to keep a golf course type, or pristine as I put it, lawn. The grass doesn't eat the leaves. The leaves don't eat themselves. Magic doesn't exist (as far as I know). And if you kill those things that do the eating then you are just creating dust that gets picked up by the wind, which could explain Nikolai's findings concerning no C/N changes to be concerned with. The other explanation, which is much more obvious, is that he fails to mention the organisms found in the soil. A simple lack of one organism or another will completely change how materials are broken down and what nutrients are deposited/left behind. Rdak, the point isn't whether or not mulching leaves is bad. You just won't have a golf course green if you do it without added fertilizer. Nikolai made that clear in the article that the turf in the last study wasn't that type of turf. It's more like park turf or my yard, which isn't pristine at all but is still what I consider a nice lawn. The question was concerning which is better, mulching them or composting them? Composting.

free--- mulch to everyone no matter where you live. Hi! to every one I just joined. I live in Mansfield and I called everywere to find free mulch. Mansfield doesn't give any free. Arlington, Fort Worth, Burleson all said you have to be a resident of there city. I found one place in Dallas that gives it for free. Preservation Tree 2222 Empire Central, Dallas Tx.75235 (near love field) Phone # 214-528-2266 ext. 201 (ask for Kelly) www.preservationtree.com You can get all you want for free,you load your self or If you have a truck or trailor they may help load with a bob cat. Call first to make sure they have some in stock. They usualy do. check in with recptionist she will show you where you can load. for small ammounts bring your own contaniers.

I also don't know much about succulents except for a bit of reading and some indoor ones. But I'd also echo the suggestion to check with those who know more succulents and be cautious about adding sand until you know it's okay. From when I have looked at suggestions about succulents, the comments about drainage and watering have been mostly about making sure the roots are not completely waterlogged (and without oxygen) for extended periods, i.e. drains well. And related to that, comments about what to add to the soil related to 'chunkier' stuff like gravel, even wood chips (but I was surprised about taht, no experience). I agree with kimmq above that organic material may not cause a problem with water. Yes, it will tend to absorb some water and release it over time, but I like to think of this as a 'buffering' effect - it will still help with drainage somewhat, but crucially, if it absorbs and releases, it's reducing chances that the below-ground area will be waterlogged (or cut off from oxygen). Put more simply, it may keep the soil moist but not soaked, which I understand is the more serious concern. But ask the specialists )