Please cal me Dan, dchall! Well, I've been reading this and all the other threads, too. I don't know why I find this interesting, but I do (background in chem engineering). I guess mowing a perfect lawn is like stocking your closet full of clean, nicely folded clothes, or getting all the bills paid and out of the way... ANYWAY, here's where I'm at on the lawn: I just received my core sampler so I can send two samples to Logan Labs. I figure one representative sample for the front lawn sod, and one for the back seeded lawn. I'll report results back here for my marching orders. I am going to test my soil for sand/clay per morpheus this weekend. It seems to me there are benefits of using both organic and synthetic treatments for the lawn. If I could use 100% organic in a practical way and have the best, healthiest and greenest lawn that way then that'd be great. However, I read things here and there like how the organic fertilizers don't really work in cold weather when the bugs slow down. Ultimately I am looking to piece together a full-year comprehensive lawn care program. Since you and morpheus seem to be the manual, I have to come here for that information! I'm trying to learn everything I can now so I don't need to ask a million questions you've already answered elsewhere. I plan to buy cornmeal and/or cornmeal gluten and alfalpha pellets and so on, but I wanted to sample the lawn as it is before dressing it up with anything. I also need to reseed some of the back lawn in the fall, and learn how to get rid of some weeds (use preemerg? in the spring)? So all in all I'm looking forward to getting started on a great lawn program, but I have to do the sampling first. Thanks so much for your interest! Dan

It's probably time to start a new thread with the new results. This one's gettin' hefty. Of all the feedings to miss, May is the most minor. It's much more important to feed well in late summer (organically) and fall (whatever). My first fall feeding went yesterday, and is now waiting for rainfall to activate. I tend to feed organically on August 1, September 1, and October 1, but technically the October 1 application is optional. I still like to do it, and it seems to help a lot. Overall, if the price of OceanGro is much cheaper than soybean, go with the OceanGro unless you have a really good reason to use the soy. In my case, it's the other way around; soy is much cheaper than Milorganite, so soy is my heavy-hitter. Soy: About 7-1-2, but if you said 7-2-1 I wouldn't blink. Good nitrogen, 100% slow release, and an excellent overall feed. Soy has no other defining characteristics other than being a good feeding. Around 20% will eventually become humus, but soy is on the low end due to the high nitrogen (which means high protein). OceanGro: 5-5-0. Good nitrogen, 90% slow release, and an excellent overall feed. Good, but slow, phosphorus source, although in a high P soil I'd avoid it for that reason. Contains 2.5% iron, so it's a good source of Fe as well. Around 10% will eventually become humus.

>>Topsoil depth guesstimate is about 6" nearest foundation and drops gradually over next 10 feet-this area will be for bedding plants. Topsoil depth guesstimate for lawn starting 10' out from foundation: 4" That's extremely deep and would invalidate the Logan test. Four inches covers most of the feeder root depth for grasses. So although the tests here are good for the rest of the lawn, the top soil area is an unknown. Wait and see if it ends up that deep, it does seem like an awful lot of top soil. The results of the test: Total Exchange Capacity 8.15: Consistent with the soil test. While optimal is 10 to 15, this is not a problem in the slightest. Soil ph 7.5: It's good we recommended no lime as it would be exactly the wrong response in this soil. Your pH is already thrown somewhat high, although this is no barrier to a gorgeous lawn. But let's not throw it out of whack any further than it already is. % Organic Matter 4.13: In the Good range, but with the lower EC and high pH, I'd recommend adding OM slowly over the next few years. That will tend to raise the EC somewhat and make the pH matter less. ANIONS Sulfur: p.p.m 14: Perfect. Phosphorus lbs/acre 133: A little low. I recommended starter fertilizer below. CATIONS Calcium 2528 (desired 2216) Magnesium 242 (desired 234) Potassium 272 (desired 254) Sodium 72 (pounds per acre) >>I don't report on these directly, I use them as a basis for adjusting soils. Base Saturation % Calcium 77.55 (60 to 70%): In perfect range, although on the high side of it. Excess Ca isn't a problem. Magnesium 12.37 (10-20%): In perfect range. Potassium 4.28 (2 to 5%): In perfect range (which is rare for K). Sodium 1.91 (.5-3%): High. This, in combination with your otherwise perfect cations above, is sending the pH too high. At this time, I'm not going to change it. Let's see if it leaches out. Other Bases 3.90 (variable): Everything else. This is pretty normal. Exchangable Hydrogen 0.00 (10 to 15%)**: Zero because of your high pH. Trace Elements Boron p.p.m. 0.23: Low. Boron's critical for photosynthesis and meristem development and differentiation. Recommendations below. Iron p.p.m. 167.0: Technically OK, but this won't produce good color in the lawn. Use Milorganite as desired to raise this and raise the OM at the same time. Manganese p.p.m. 16.0 Copper p.p.m. 3.97 Zinc p.p.m. 3.4 Aluminum p.p.m 678.0 These four are fine (Al isn't used, it's actually toxic, but not available until pH drops into the low-5 range). Zn is technically out of whack when compared to the others, but I'm not inclined to fiddle with it. Recommendations: May 1: Apply starter fertilizer at bag rate. June 1: Apply starter fertilizer at bag rate. June 15: Apply 3 tablespoons per thousand square feet of 20 Mule Team borax (use Milorganite as a carrier to even the distribution and get this tiny amount down). September 1: Apply starter fertilizer at bag rate. September 15: Apply 3 tablespoons per thousand square feet of 20 Mule Team borax.

Depends on who is doing the accepting. The EPA exceptional quality rating is advertised as a good thing by milorganite. For me, its a bit of a hypothesis I cannot disprove at this time, or hopefully ever. And its about money, so being a man of modern times I have to ask what the EPA is missing. I need to understand more about natural metals I guess. One way I do that is place the behavior of these resellers of waste into a broad context and see if the behavior they exhibit seems odd. In this case of the 72 page report, some ferts most definitely have high numbers. But when filtered, Zinc amendments having high levels of zinc is, well, what did you expect? Plants have grown into existence using metals. Red clay is red because of Iron and Oxygen. The real inclusive question that I have not yet answered for myself is what exposure does nature give me here, and how do these levels compare a fertilizer at say .5 lb-2 lb/ 1000sf / year, and include accumulation in the answer. I got kinda excited and a little freaked when I realized a pathway exists to reroute commercial wastes into fertilizers as carriers and so forth; It is a great idea socially but for adults only. I personally cannot stomach the writings of extremist California thinkers like Mike Schaffer who wave the purity flag for political money and have a all or nothing approach to toxicity. I read that often, as you ask, toxicity is a simple matter of quantity. Finding reasonable published academic sources that do not have to use parenthesis to explain their own words has been my muse lately. I would rather read Bryant Redhawk. I would even propose that trace metals needed by plant and other life are perhaps like a flu shot where a little bit innoculates? Thats a different view. But millenia ago who knows what plants had to do to adapt. I am still learning about your question.