Okay, I see what you're saying. I missed Albert's part about wanting a cation exchange capacity. Anyway, it's a good value to know in your organic amendment if you're deciding between a couple of choices and increasing nutrient holding capacity is a major concern. As one of the deciding factors, CEC can be one more thing to consider when choosing. To assume that one type of testing has no use because another type of testing is useful is a one-sided approach. That's usually not a good way to address any situation. One should strive to see the whole picture. I do agree that the results of the other tests that you mentioned would be nice to know to get the whole picture, but I was addressing why you would do a chemistry test. (since you asked) When it comes to chemical hazards, I wasn't talking about poisons and herbices. I was talking about salinity, pH, boron, sodium adsorption ratio (SAR) and the like. Are any of those going to be a problem in coffee grounds? Probably not, but it's never a bad idea to test something to ensure that what somebody says you're getting is what you're actually getting. I've had situations where a company sells a contractor "nitrolized fir shavings" only to find dangerous levels of boron because their "shavings" were actually ground-up, recycled, pressure-treated plywood. When it comes to salinity yes, testing just one contributing ion one would be a mistake and all of those nutrients are necessary for plant growth. That's why the lab tested all of them. The ECe, gives the overall salinity and addresses it as a single number to give you an idea of the osmotic potential of the salts when combined. Osmotic potential means that they pull and hang on to water. With enough combined salts, this osmotic potential is great enough that the salts can actually pull water with more force than plant roots can pull the water up. In those cases, salts pull water right out of the roots osmotically. That is where the burn on roots comes from. It depends on which plants you're talking about but for salt sensitive plants, that starts at an ECe of around 3.0 dS/m or so. A lot of stuff will start showing symptoms at 4.0 dS/m or greater. Then you look at specific ions because some (notably sodium) also have "specific toxicity". That means that in addition to the problem of osmotic potential, they are also taken up into the plant and act as a poison. So it is a good idea to look at specific ions in addition to as the overall salinity to get the whole picture. When it comes to balancing those minerals, yes. They are all nutrients and they need to be in balance. However, that will only get you so far. You need the whole picture to really address the issue (Gee, I'm sensing a theme). Let's say you have an ECe of 8.0 dS/m and your plants are burning and you find that your salinity is coming largley from magnesium, which is also at a 2(Mg) to 1(Ca) ratio with calcium. Sure, that ratio should be flipped so that you have a 2(Ca) to 1 (Mg) ratio but adding calcium at that point will also raise your salinity. You'll balance that ratio, but your salinity problem will still kill your plants. A different approach should be considered. The ECe is an important tool to help guide those decisions. I think that the confusion regarding organic material comes down to the definition of the term. Lots of people use the term very loosely to mean that the material in question is derived from something that was once alive. That isn't a good definition to use because, as we see here, it leads to confusion. In the particular case I used as an example, nitrate is considered an inorganic substance because it is the product of the neutralization of an acid (and microbes play a big role here). The acid in this case was ammonium (NH4), which is considered a weak acid because of it's ability to make a solution more acidic as it releases hydrogens. The nitrate is then an inorganic polyatomic (more than one atom) anion (an ion with a negative charge). And like I said before, this stuff happens over and over again with lots of different compounds. As materials break down, all sorts of acid and base neutralizations (that's a big reason why composting usually pushes the reaction of stuff towards neutral) and oxidation reduction reactions, microbial activity and all sorts of other stuff take place, and inorganic compounds are formed along the way. Back to blood meal. The nitrogen is more available in blood meal than in other nitrogen sources. However, if you're broadcasting it, the nitrogen material still needs to break down and work its way into the soil. It happens pretty quickly, but it still takes some time and doesn't happen all at once. Is that a pretty high rate? Sure. Would I go that high? Probably not. But nitrogen does not present that "specific toxicty" problem we were just talking about. It's the osmotic potential of the stuff. If it is placed on top, works its way into the soil over time, and is accompanied with sufficient irrigation to ensure that there is enough water to over-come the osmotic pull of the nitrogen, the roots shouldn't burn. I say that because I've seen similar rates of blood meal used successfully in the field time and again by different individuals and agencies. I've also seen rates like that burn plants when poorly managed. It depends primarily on the competency of the person applying. Again, would I recommend that rate? No, you can trust people to be competent. Is it a tactical nuclear strike on plants every time? No, it can be managed. As I said previously, it isn't too awful high.

Zone 4a and this will be my fifth year doing this. I start around new years, typically with hardy perennials in my zone, shurbs/trees and seeds that i don't really care about (e.g. old seeds). I typically wait until late February to start putting out a lot of my annuals, and I leave the following til the end of march or early april: zinnias sunflowers ornamental millet abutilon dolichos lablab morning glories 4 o'clocks cosmos and pretty much anyhting tropical in origin Most of these will sprout if sown earlier, but their foliage is sufficiently tender that I lose them in the cold nights we have earlier in the winter/spring. If I wait til then, they typically don't pop til mid april or later and i typically don't have to worry about the seedlings freezing then.

Primer: Pre-ferment is a method by which a small dough is made of yeast, flour and water, to develop the activity and flavor of the yeast, usually overnight. "Ferment" refers to the yeast activity in the final bread dough. Biga (Italian) and levain (French) are pre-ferments. Usually, however not exclusively, bigas are made with commercial yeast, and levains are made with sourdough starter or saved levain starter. Those distinctions refer to the origins of the words. Many bakers use the words interchangeably. If you're not sure, just say "pre-ferment" and you're covered. Similarly, banneton, a woven basket, usually lined with cloth (French) and brotform, a coiled basket, less often lined with cloth (German) are used interchangeably for both types. In English, you can say "bread form" or "dough basket". Many people say "proofing basket", but I don't care for the word "proof" as a synonym for "rise". I'm not old, but I remember proving cake yeast before dry yeast was stable, but fresh yeast could have died. The yeast was proven (i.e., "proofed"), when the biga rose. The rises of the main dough were a given unless something really bad happened. Nowadays, people just toss in dried yeast and expect it to rise, and it does, so they proof in the baskets. This is a persnickety quibble that has no real meaning to anyone but me. :) Hydration refers to the weight of water in the dough based on the amount of flour, and is usually expressed as a percentage. The flour is always 100%. If there are different flours in the dough, then they have partial percentages, e.g., 95% unbleached white flour and 5% whole wheat (a substitute for European style bread flour). Add them up and they equal 100% because the flour is always 100%. This allows one to discuss, clearly, the amount of water in the dough, which can be more useful than adjectives such as loose, wet, sticky, tight, tacky, etc. If you have 1000g total of flour in your dough, and your recipe calls for 68% hydration, you would use 680g of water. If you have 650g of white flour, 120g of whole wheat, and 30g of rye flour, for a total of 800g flour, 68% hydration would mean 544g of water. These percentages really only apply to what's in the bowl. When you do your stretch and folds on additional flour, you're changing the percentage. When you wet your hands to do them, you're also changing the percentage. So they make it easier to talk about baking, but every baker is still going to have slightly different results. Factor in environment--flour absorbs humidity from the air, and also releases it and dries out. It also has a fat component, though much less with white flour, especially bleached. (Put your white flour in a half full, air tight container for a year (i.e., trapping in some air so oxidation will take place), and even the bleached stuff will smell rancid when you open it up (personal experience talking).) If you oil your surfaces, hands, etc., a trace of oil can also be added, mostly negligible, but sometimes a few drops can make a big difference. With all of those factors, as well, the percentages refer to the basic recipe, and the rest is whatever works for you. Like S&P to taste. Experience is king. Repetition is important. Getting a feel for it is crucial.

Heehee! Four kitties with four legs = 16. ;-) I truly appreciate all of the opinions expressed here. Varying thoughts help me think things through from all angles, DebraW - I thought I could put my hands on the document that lists the paint used in this house but I'm not sure where it is at the moment. I'll keep looking and hope to come across it soon. I'm pretty sure the builder used Sherwin Williams brand but I'm not sure of the colors.