toxcrusadr-- the *path* is supposedly 8' wide, not the spreader. And the path does seem to be... I didn't stop to measure it though : ) If that sounds funny though, I wonder if that's why I ran out of fertilizer sooner than I expected to... I'm not sure I'm up to all that calculating-- can I assume though that the higher the number, the more grains it puts out at once? The people at the store (who seem very knowledgeable, I mean) said that I want one bag to cover a quarter acre. Which I think is about the amount of grass we have, maybe a bit more. We have a tiny bit over a half acre total but that of course includes the house/pool/driveway/pavers out back etc. Regardless, that bag lasted for a bout 1/3 of my grass. I went back for 2 more bags and changed the setting on the spreader-- think from 8 to 6 and got some more range out of it. Still had to open the third bag though. Sigh. Maybe I should look for a highly rated spreader and buy that. This one was borrowed from my brother-in-law and I think I have found it online and if I'm right about which it is (the Scotts classic drop spreader), I see that it gets bad reviews, lots of them. Same reasons. I'm learning a lot of lessons lately, the hard way... Isn't that supposed to be the best way though? Or something. Oh and just FYI, that's only one of several bare patches. And there are plenty of weeds, trust me. It's hard to tell from this one picture but they are everywhere, all kinds. Some areas have less but some areas are also straight weeds so it all balances out, ha.

FWIW, I agree with working on the soil biology as well as the nutrient levels. And not using fertilizer if possible is desirable when possible. The problem is that the soils we are working with are rarely "natural". They are horrible abused during construction and the topsoil is almost always stripped away and sold. Therefore there are many things that must be fixed, and the biology and nutrients are only two of them. In these cases adding fertilizer is no different than adding mulch, or anything else. That is as long as you are not using excess. I use nothing I don't have to, and those I do use I am very careful about. So under natural conditions the trees planted are complete suitable, but due to the construction, they would fail to thrive. In my particular case, the soil was sooooo poor, that almost nothing would have grown and that includes any grasses. Therefore there would be nothing to mulch, no clippings to put back, and nothing for the biology, and no nutrients added back to the soil. After 5 years, my soil is loaded with insects, earthworms, drains much better, holds much more water, much more organic matter, and the mulch breaks down in weeks, and our plants are very well. All of which says I have done very well with the biology and the nutrients. Ultimately what I advocate is a "balanced" approach. I advocate using organics (Milorganite, mulch, etc) combined with chemical where necessary. Along with limiting the use of pesticides as much as possible. Those that are used, are not persistent. Just my $0.02. Arktrees

You're the second person in the last 6 months or so to post a Soil Savvy Report. Are they running infomercials or is some youtube "expert" recommending them or what? I'm guessing based on their description, that their extractant is some version of H3A. It was developed about 10 years ago but to my knowledge, it has never been calibrated and has not been adopted as an alternative or option in lieu of the accepted extractants for soil analysis by any soil science/agronomy program or professional lab. However, a few (very few) labs do provide H3A-1, 2 or 3 in addition to standard testing for a fee. In this case it is more akin to a saturated paste test than a soil nutrient test for soil amending/balancing. Consequently, I'm sorry, but IMO, it is of no use in making soil recommendations. I can't read some of the reports numbers (too out of focus), but FYI, per their literature, the pH they report will be about .5 lower than actual pH. Onward: I know of no single organic fertilizer source with anything near a balanced NPK. Edit: (although there may be some with minuscule values--paging dchall) Most big box stores will carry a synthetic balanced or triple NPK fertilizer but they will most often be labeled as "garden" food or fertilizer (10-10-10, 12-12-12, 19-19-19 etc) and will be in small packages of 5-10lbs. You'll get a much better per unit price from a garden center or feed store or co-op or SiteOne store in 50 lb bags. Follow j4c's advice to calculate amounts needed and cost comparison. I would agree with dchall's advice if this was an established lawn, but for new turf, fertilize at 1/2 bag rate (or at 1/2# of N) every two weeks and then 1# June 1, then do nothing but water and mow until you start the Fall regimen around Late August. Good luck.

Stephanie: I looked through your links, fantastic info. Thank you. The first link was where I got rose tissue analysis (done by U of CA at Davis) back in 2014. Rose-tissue analysis: more nitrogen than potassium, 1/2 calcium, 1/10 phosphorus and 1/10 magnesium. Kathyc_z10: See below link for info. on alkaline-soil & fertilizer. Below link shows my discussion with BirdsLoveRoses .. she has pH 9 to 10 soil with high salt. She has pH 9 tap-water like I do. If you have any questions, I'm ready to answer here too. My soil test back in 2011 was pH 7.7 with exceedingly high magnesium & low manganese & low calcium. I did gypsum like they recommended, but if I have to do it all over again, I would focus on organic matter (alfalfa and cracked corn) to UP the nitrogen & moisture, rather than gypsum which DRIED OUT MY CLAY (I have rock hard alkaline clay). https://www.houzz.com/discussions/6111804/soil-ph-soil-type-moisture-fertilizer-for-certain-roses#26816464 Below is a thread which I wrote on gypsum is best FOR THE BOTTOM of planting hole only. I also included a map of different soils across USA: https://www.houzz.com/discussions/5971487/calling-strawchicago-re-clay-alkaline-soil-amendments-fertilizers