flora_uk: I agree with part of what you said..."For me the idea of buying in or driving to collect material for composting and fretting over ratios always has a worrying tinge of losing the point." Composting can be for more than one reason. Composting to reduce the load on our local landfills and to keep nutrients on our property is one thing. Composting to improve the overall quality of our garden soil is another. Buying alfalfa pellets to achieve the right C/N ratio is counterproductive if all I am trying to do is reduce my curbside waste. However, I am interested in creating a significant quantity of compost to improve the condition of my sandy Florida soil, so I may get better results from my garden. Leaf mold would work, but as this is my first year collecting leaves, I am impatient and do not want to wait 1-3 years for the results. So I have gathered more leaves than I think I need this year. Some of them are getting the extra nitrogen from alfalfa pellets (and some with 26-2-1), so I can get the end result this year. The rest will be left as-is and will be ready for use as leaf mold in the future. In the following years I will be able to have leaf mold, as well as mixing stored fall leaves and summer greens for compost. And I have to say this, my F-150 gets horrible gas milage, but it gets better milage than the big truck that drives around our neighborhood each Friday. I have brought home enough leaves to fill half of one of those trucks. I'll bet I have burned less gas and done less damage to our roads that that truck would have. So collecting a neighbors leaves, in my opinion, is a net gain for society. Convincing my neighbors to not put it out there in the first place would be better, but what I do is a close second. Everyone: I guess I understand it enough. 30:1, damp like a sponge, turned regular for oxygen, and it all works out quick and efficient. O, C, N and water are all present in proper ratios. Do this with a 3x3x3 pile and the optimal temperature part works out also. So is the problem with a 20:1, ratio too much heat? And too little heat with a 50:1 ratio? It would then seem that temperature control would allow for variations on the C/N ratio. Right? If the microbes are made up of N and water, and consume O and C to live, with heat and compost as a byproduct, then more N and water means more C and O is consumed, resulting in even more heat. With the wrong C/N ratio, there is either too much or too little mass (the C) to dissipate the heat, resulting in a non-optimum temperature range. At 30:1, as the carbon is processed the mass stays the same, so as long as O keeps coming, the temp and microbe activity stays steady. Once all of the carbon is processed, they die due to lack of food. At 20:1 (assuming O and water are non-limiting factors) there are too many microbes thriving, there is not enough space for the heat to spread to, so the microbes cook themselves. At 50:1, the microbes living do not heat up the pile enough to create the perfect temperature for the right microbes to thrive. Does this explanation sound reasonable? kimmsr: According to Britannica, via google, "Vegetable: In the broadest sense, all plant life and plant products (vegetable matter); in common, narrow usage, the fresh edible portion of herbaceous plants (roots, stems, leaves, flowers, or fruit), either eaten fresh or prepared in some way." Columbia University Press (also via google) says: "vegetable: term originally used for any plant, now the name for many food plants, most of them annuals, and for their edible parts." I think you are correct in your assertion that vegetable and vegetative are interchangeable in many cases. You were talking over me when you used vegetative and vegetable interchangeably. Well, you were, now I know. I always appreciate learning something new. However, in the context of discussing C/N ratios, greens and browns, I think it is confusing. I think vegetative= browns vegetable= greens is the most effective in communicating with the largest number of people. According to the above definitions, current, common usage agrees with this. Thanks.

Thanks again for all the input, everyone. After sharing some jars from my test batch I can definitely say that I'm going with the low-sugar this year. My main reason for wanting it was simply the amount of sugar in the normal Ball recipes - I tend to give away quite a bit of what I make and the only complaint I've recieved, quite regularly, is that it's too sweet. The reduced sugar level definitely lets more of the fruit flavors shine through, without the overpowering taste of sugar. For reference, I used the recipe in the box, 4 cups black raspberry juice (from ~1.5 quarts of berries and enough water to come halfway up them in the pan) and 3 cups of sugar - Yeild was around 2.5 pints...I could have probably got some more, but I didn't realize how fast this stuff jels up. Normally, after finishing the rolling boil, I let it sit for about 2-3 minutes - this way the foam forms a kind of "skin" and is much easier to skim off - The low sugar set so quick that I lost nearly a quarter of a pint just in skimming th foam. ...Will be clearing out my freezer this week and making up some jelly - Should get around 10-12 pints each of black raspberry and blackberry with what's in there now, and yes, I will be firing up the water canner. Thinking about taking some down to the local farmer's market as well to see if the owners would be interested in selling any. -Thanks again for the info, I do appreciate the comments and concerns...

No need to drown readers with input. But a facts are helpful. # of loads. type of loads, f.ex. whites, towels, poly workout etc. enzyme/non-enzyme detergent? very different results with Method liquid vs Persil Pro Clean f.ex. temperatures tested i.e how hot is the hot wash? You told us 125F. Is that as hot as it goes? Internal heater? Number of cycles & Range of cycle lengths These are quick facts that should be known up front. A pretty interface is fine though it doesn't do anything for me. Who cares if the machine mixes -- I put all the stuff in first. I want it to work best not stupidist. Also why certain things, like a heater and number of cycles are important and why they are not. Then folks can adjust response to their needs.

An excellent analysis and I'm very impressed. As an engineer, I live in the world of assumptions. As long as they’re understood, all is well. However here, I’m making a LOT of assumptions that I don’t understand very well at all, so I’m not too comfortable with my conclusions. That is compounded by the inability to really check the change from last year because of my lack of consistency (I know, I know). After going through the numbers in detail, I now see just how helpful a truly consistent measurement would have been. I'd say that's a pretty accurate description for soil analysis: a bunch of assumptions. This isn't a controlled lab situation and each year's soil sampling and test results can/will very sometimes significantly, so any variable we can control when sampling helps reduce those fluctuations. To try to stay grounded in expertise, I’ve generally just taken morpheuspa’s plan from 2016 and based on RidgeRunner’s ranges and comments, tried to convince myself of whether I could justify using the same 2016 recommendations. So, my thoughts: Why not? It's as good a place to start as any and better than starting from scratch. Assuming M III Phosphorus is what I’m adding with starter fert, bag rate of scotts starter fert (24-25-4) is 0.75 lb/k Phosphorous, or 32.67 lb/ac. I added that 4 times in 2016 for a total of 131 lb/ac of P. Not all of that hung around apparently, and since the B1 section increased by 47lb/ac and the F1 section only increased by 14lb/ac, it appears that the F1 section uses/loses P faster than the B1 section. A couple of clarifications: 1) M III (M3) is the test that was used. It is a cocktail of chemicals that is used to extract nutrients for measurement. In this case the Phosphorous is reported as lbs per acre of P2O5. (Other labs may report it as ppm of elemental Phosphorous). The nice thing about reporting it as P2O5, is that P2O5 is the form of Phosphorous contained in fertilizers. So your assumption is right. 2) Phosphorous moves very slowly (down or otherwise) through the soil and phosphorous binds within days of application and can become unavailable to the plant. In acidic soils it binds to Aluminum and Iron. In high pH soils, it binds with calcium. An assumption: the difference between F1 and B1 may be due in part to the difference in pH between your two soils as reflected in the initial test. If the target is 200, seems like another season of about 4 starter fert applications would make sense, although in the B1 section it seems like I’m cutting it close. Maybe I’ll apply a couple of the apps in that section at 0.5 bag rate? I concur. As an alternative (based on your budget) Milorganite has reconfigured their formula to 5-4-0 from 5-2-0. Now only 10-20% might be organic P, but organic P is "slow" release and would help supply P to your turf better over time. (All of P2O5 is inorganic and although inorganic P is readily available to the turf plant, it also readily binds up. I gave you the 200 range, because you had mentioned that you didn't know what target you had been given last year, 200 is his/a common target for a high maintenance lawn. Some general points of clarification: 1) for every pound of N that a plant uses (not every pound of N that is applied--but USED) the plant needs and uses 1/2 pound of Potassium and 1/4 pound of of Phosphorous. whichever is missing, is the limiting factor. 2)The ranges I gave you are the ones that soil scientist have found within which plants "appear" to do well. They are quantities averaged for soil types and plants. Research has shown that values below the range result in poor performance. That as you approach the low end, additions of that nutrient are more likely to show a visible improvement in the plant and as you approach the high end, additions of the nutrient are much less likely to result in any improvement. Values above the high end are very unlikely to show any improvement and at some point can be detrimental to the plant. (did I say this before?) Bottom line, as you progress with balancing your soil, if you reach a point within the range where you no longer see improvement, you've reached your optimum in regard to any nutrient. My Ca/Mg ratios are roughly in range (F1/B1 5.1/13.1) and slightly up from 2016 (4.7/10.6), so that’s fine, but the Calcium saturation is fairly far off. I’m assuming that this is what is causing my low pH values, but not sure how that’s calculated. Also not sure how to calculate what my expected increase in Mg saturation should be based on the fast acting lime. But since my calcium is clearly low, at a minimum I can add the same calcium (lime) app I did last year (F1: 3lb/k, B1: 1lb/k, spring and fall). The question would be can I increase that app, particularly in the B1 section, and what should the corresponding Mg app be? Since the Ca/Mg ratio is on the low side in F1 maybe I should add less Epsom Salt than I did last year? Say, 1lb/k instead of 2lb/k? Add the same or more in the B1 section to keep that ratio from becoming too large. Say, 2lb/k again. This is when a buffer pH test would help- a lot IMO. If they still have your sample (30 days?) they could run that for about $10 per sample. You are correct that base saturation reflects low pH readings and if you fill up all but 10 to 15% of the cation sites with Ca, Mg. and Potassium and leave the 10-15% to Hydrogen, you should end up with a pH in the 6's. But none of those nutrients neutralize the acidity. For soils, an addition of carbonate will do that. It's better to know how much carbonate/lime (an amount derived from buffer pH testing) is needed to raise pH than to estimate based on total base saturations. BSCR, CEC, lime and differences in lime products, etc. is a bit involved, but I'm happy to clarify any questions you have on them. As it stands now, without a buffer test, as your pH is not really moving and/or dropping and as you want to avoid freeing up any more Aluminum (which can be toxic to the turf in addition to the P issue), you want to raise your pH using lime additions. Your Mg is near sufficient levels, so it shouldn't be an impediment to your turf, however, if you wish to address the base saturation ratio, yes, 1#/k for B1 only of Epsom (considering the difference in sampling and to avoid over shooting) and mixed with the lime. Yes, I'd increase the lime app. As both areas are near the same pH, fast acting lime at 9lbs/k (B1 and F1) would be indicated and even that may not make for much movement in pH on a future test. It should help the available P values to raise. Potassium values seem to be low, and the saturation fell significantly, which, based on morpheuspa’s statements, probably has to do with the Calcium. Common lawn wisdom makes me think I should add in a potassium-rich “winterizer” app in the fall to bump that number. But it again seems like I need to add at least what I added of Potassium Sulfate in 2016 (F1: 3lb/k). However, this time it looks as though adding 3lb/k to the B1 section also might be a good idea. Agree, in fact, I'd suggest increasing to three apps of 3#/k this year. Avoid applying within 2-3 weeks of any lime app. I’ve been sufficiently warned about playing with boron in my lawn to try to improve the number without very specific advice, so I’ll probably just leave that alone this round. That's up to you, based on the soil tests and your previous app,, you could apply 2 tablespoons of Borax per k again to raise values into the optimal range. Your decision. I would have done the jar test, but I came home to a light dusting of snow. Winter isn’t done with us yet, even in S. Carolina. Hope that makes sense. Feel free to ask for any clarifications. Once again, nice job.