I agree, sounds like an excellent fert. Thanks for the test/posting

I would have guessed the same from my experience.

Thank you for the info. I was going to ask what Corn Gluten Meal was for. I bought a bag early last spring but forgot if I bought it for pre-emergent or as a fertilizer. LOL Now I think we will use it on our new grass sod as a fertilizer. It's the 3rd lawn we've put in in the 24 yrs we've been here & I hope this one will last. Should we put it down now or wait til the spring?

Overpriced organic fertilizer over here.

Rutgers - Can you do Soybean meal vs CGM experiment? It;d be neat to see how they perform compared to each other..

Dee2000....You can put it down at any time. It appears to be a very good fertilizer. I couldn't believe how well the roots had grown in such a short time. It was unbelievable.

Lou....I can't promise anything, but I might give it a shot. I have access to a grow light, and I might do it as part of a series of experiments that I am planning with my class (I am an elementary school teacher). We are going to do a lot with composting, vermicomposting, and perhaps a bit with organic fertilizers for our school garden. If we go that route, I would have no problem setting up a few small containers of grass.

This is WAY early in my experimentation on my own lawn to make any conclusions, but I am starting my further research under the opinion that Milorganite is the fastest organic (is that truly considered organic?) way to a green lawn, followed by corn gluten meal and then soy. I got the fastest greenup from Milorganite, while nothing of real note in the month following an application of soy bean meal. And as I said, the corn gluten meal seemed to make the grass in my tubs grow like nuts (compared to the tub that received no corn gluten meal). The glaring hole in my limited research - if you can call it research - is that my tub experiment did not feature a tub with any other type of fertilizer. It would have been neat to compare the corn gluten meal to Milorganite, Scotts, and soy bean meal. Heck, I would even like to try one with alfalfa.

Now, I'm tempted to buy milorganite. I went to Lowes this morning and they're selling it for $9.97/40 lbs. However, I remember someone saying that Milorganite doesn't have any protein at all. Question now is, when we use Milorganite, are we putting nutrients to the soil or are we just putting kinda like steriods effects to the blades?

I want to conduct experiment too since I still have 5-8 lbs SBM left. However, it's starting to get cold in my area.

Milorganite has about 39% protein. It feeds soil microbes like other organic fertilizers.

-Deerslayer

Milorganite is made by high temperature incineration of the partially treated sewage from Milwaukee. It is more like the process of firing clay to make china than any other process I can think of. Unfortunately there is a lot of different stuff in that partially treated sewage that remains after it is incinerated. Washington State has tested over 4,000 fertilizers for heavy metals (lead, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, etc.). Milorganite came out at number 20 from the top of the list. That's too high for me. I actually cringe when I see people using it.

Deerslayer: How do you know Milorganite has protein in it? It just doesn't seem like it could have any organic material left after spending time at 1,000 degrees F. Is protein listed on the bag?

I know i'm inserting a pretty silly question here, but if we put CGM down now, won't we have to mow aggressively far later into the season? I was hoping i could stop mowing in the next few weeks ...

DCHall, you keep repeating yourself and your spin. Below is my response from a thread a year ago (Aug 14, 06).

"You've pointed out in several threads that Milorganite is number 20 out of 4,000 fertilizers in respect to heavy metals content. The source of that quote is credible...the state of Washington. What you fail to disclose is that all of the fertilizers on that list meet the EPAs Exceptional Quality standards. That means that all of the fertilizers are considered safe for growing crops for human consumption. Clearly, all of them are safe for using on lawns."

DCHall, when your child brings home a report card with an A, do you ask if it was a high A or a low A?

Regarding protein in Milorganite, where do you think the 6% N comes from? It may surprise you that Milorganite is not dried sewage sludge. Milorganite is comprised of the remains of the bacteria that ate the sludge. The bacterial remains are the source of the protein.

Regarding the 1,000F temperature, Milorganite is heated to just over 180F to kill pathogens. BTW, the National Organic Program stipulates that all compost used in organic farming operations must be heated to a similar temperature to kill pathogens. This is another example of your spin and intentional distortion of facts.

-Deerslayer

Rutgers,

Let us know on that experiment! :) FYI, the fastest acting "organic" fertilizer I've tried was Nature Guide 9-2-2 which is chicken poop coated with urea... My neighbors tried them and few days later, the lawns were dark green. It was impressive green up.

estreya said: I know i'm inserting a pretty silly question here, but if we put CGM down now, won't we have to mow aggressively far later into the season? I was hoping i could stop mowing in the next few weeks ...

Depends on your soil temps. In your area, maybe yes.

deerslayer said: DCHall, when your child brings home a report card with an A, do you ask if it was a high A or a low A?

When every product in the class gets an A, ranging from pure ground grain to heavy metal supplements, I like to choose the ones at the safe end of the hazard list. That's what I was trying to say.

Regarding protein in Milorganite, where do you think the 6% N comes from? It may surprise you that Milorganite is not dried sewage sludge. Milorganite is comprised of the remains of the bacteria that ate the sludge. The bacterial remains are the source of the protein.

Good point. When something is incinerated at 1,000 degrees F, though, what protein is left? I am at a total loss as to where the 6% N comes from.

Regarding the 1,000F temperature, Milorganite is heated to just over 180F to kill pathogens.

Perhaps I was oversimplifying the Milorganite website. They say it a little differently.

I apologize for any distortion of the facts whether intentional or unintentional. I try to keep my facts straight and consistently applied. As to spin, I don't apologize for my opinion of the various materials and methods in use. I use information available to me to support my opinion. Information that conflicts with my opinion may be omitted from my messages. You'll hardly ever find me using material from the chemical industry websites to support my position on organic gardening.

"When every product in the class gets an A, ranging from pure ground grain to heavy metal supplements, I like to choose the ones at the safe end of the hazard list."

My point was that your comments are misleading to the casual reader. All of the products on that list meet the Exceptional Quality Standards of the EPA. There are many other products that do not. BTW, I don't think pure grains and heavy metal supplements are on the list. Only commercially sold fertilizers are. Do you ever stop distorting the facts?

"When something is incinerated at 1,000 degrees F, though, what protein is left?"
First of all, Milorganite is not incinerated. It is heated for about 30 minutes in ovens that are between 840 and 1200F. The resulting temperature of the final product is a bit over 180F. This is consistent with the temperature specified by the National Organic Program for compost. Again, you've distorted the facts.

Let me ask you this question. When you cook chicken to 180F, is any protein left?

"I am at a total loss as to where the 6% N comes from."
Since you are the author of the Organic Lawn Care FAQ, I thought you would know. Perhaps you need to do some additional study instead of giving advice...especially before you bash a product using misleading information.

"I use information available to me to support my opinion. Information that conflicts with my opinion may be omitted from my messages."
There you have it folks. DCHall is more interested in advancing his opinion then telling the truth. That was my point all along.

-Deerslayer

Could we be further off track from corn gluten meal?

My point was that your comments are misleading to the casual reader. All of the products on that list meet the Exceptional Quality Standards of the EPA. There are many other products that do not. BTW, I don't think pure grains and heavy metal supplements are on the list. Only commercially sold fertilizers are. Do you ever stop distorting the facts?

If it is sold in Washington as a fertilizer, then it is on the list, grains included. Regarding heavy metals, the readers can sort of decide for themselves with the following info from the list. These products and their respective metal content is listed as follows from the Washington State testing.

Ironite 1-0-0 has 4,380 ppm of Arsenic
GOEMAR MZ63 FOLIAR has 277 ppm of Cadmium
PHYTO-PLUS COBALT 3% 1-0-0 has 28,000 ppm of Cobalt
Ironite 1-0-0 has 15.1 ppm of Mercury
MOLYTRAC has 161,000 ppm of Molybdenum
CENEX LAND O' LAKES LAWN AND GARDEN LIME WITH MAGNESIUM has 385 ppm of Nickel
Ironite 1-0-0 has 2,910 ppm of Lead
MONTEREY FISH AND POOP has 491 ppm of Selenium
LEFFINGWELL NUTRA-SPRAY ZINC 50 has 544,000 ppm of Zinc

According to the Washington State report, All fertilizers registered by WSDA meet the Washington standards for metals, with the vast majority meeting the standards by a wide margin. When reviewing new products, WSDA occasionally finds one with metals levels and application rates that cause it to exceed the standards. In most case, the company is able to address the problem by (1) using different source materials (with lower metals levels) in the product, and/or (2) lowering the rate of application on the label.

And they go on to say, WSDA routinely samples a number of fertilizers each year and analyzes them for the nine metals covered by the Washington standards. WSDA is focusing its metals sampling efforts on those fertilizer it believes are most likely to have relatively high metals levels. These include certain phosphate fertilizers, micronutrients, and industrial waste-derived fertilizers.

The way I read the list and the WSDA comments, they do include heavy metal supplements derived from industrial waste. And if the materials are determined to be dangerous, the company is given a chance to change the application rate to comply with the hilarious "Exceptional Quality Standards."

The list published by Washington State contains only those materials that passed their tests. There were over 3,000 fertilizers or amendments that did not pass and are not on the list. With this in mind, Id like to restate what we were talking about earlier. The list started with approximately 4,000 materials. Approximately 2,500 of those failed to get on the list. Those I give an F to. The rest of the materials are published in their report. Of those, I give the grades A through D. Milorganite would receive a D if not a D- in my school.

First of all, Milorganite is not incinerated. It is heated for about 30 minutes in ovens that are between 840 and 1200F. The resulting temperature of the final product is a bit over 180F. This is consistent with the temperature specified by the National Organic Program for compost. Again, you've distorted the facts.

Let me ask you this question. When you cook chicken to 180F, is any protein left?

You may be correct about this. If you are your explanation answers a question Ive had for a long time. I have written to the Milorganite folks to ask them for more detail than they put in their website. The reason I was aware of the process at all is that I attended a small meeting where a spokesperson from Hou-Actinite came to talk to our organic group in San Antonio. They use the same process as Milorganite. He was the one who mentioned an "incinerator" and, what I interpreted to be holding the material at 1,000 degrees F for an hour. I interpreted that as meaning the "milorganite" itself was held at the high temp for an hour. But, as you did not quite say, it comes in wet. If the kiln is really a dehydrator which only dries the stuff until it reaches 180 degrees F (way below boiling) and then holds that temp until the material dries out to 5% moisture, then my questions about where the nitrogen comes from would be answered. It would be as Deerslayer says, from the remains of the microbes in the original sludge. Right now Im thinking that this has to be the answer.

Nevertheless, unless you can explain away the heavy metals, Im staying at least 10 feet away from Milorganite. That still makes me cringe.

Since you are the author of the Organic Lawn Care FAQ, I thought you would know. Perhaps you need to do some additional study instead of giving advice...especially before you bash a product using misleading information.

I do study this. Thats how I know about stuff like the grains and metal supplements on the Washington list. When the information I have turns out to be faulty, I am not afraid to admit it, even if it changes a formerly held opinion. I always learn from experiences like that. Rather than getting agitated and abrasive, all you have to do is show me your research and Ill check it out.

There you have it folks. DCHall is more interested in advancing his opinion then telling the truth. That was my point all along.

Oooooh, yeah! There you have it. Any time you disagree with my opinion, bring it up. Ill listen.

"If it is sold in Washington as a fertilizer, then it is on the list, grains included."

"If" and "fertilizer" are the operative words and remember that you stated "pure grains" initially. Show me where pure corn, alfala, and soybean meal are listed. Note, I'm not referring to commercial products that contain grains as ingredients.

You also used the words "heavy metal supplements" in your initial statement. Only fertilizers are included in the list not supplements. I think you incorrectly used the term "heavy metal supplements" as a synonym for "fertilizers that contain some heavy metals". I believe that this "mistake" was intentional.

You may call these points "nitpicking" but I've noticed that you often use sloppy language as a vehicle for adding your spin.

My key point regarding the Washington list was that you failed to disclose relevant information. You intentionally mislead people so that your opinion appears valid. You've already admitted to this.

"Of those, I give the grades A through D. Milorganite would receive a D if not a D- in my school."
You don't seem to understand. Many of us are not interested in your opinions. We want facts. We especially don't want your opinions disguised as a facts.

"Any time you disagree with my opinion, bring it up. Ill listen."
What does that mean? I pointed out that you omitted relevant information regarding the Washington list in August of 2006 and again in April of this year. You totally ignored those posts and made the same misleading comments in this thread.

The fact that you add spin and intentionally omit relevant information has severely damaged your credibility as far as I'm concerned. I can no longer accept anything you post at face value.

Many people that read these threads approach turf care as a science with facts and evidence. Opinions are of little value in science. Clearly, you do not subscribe to this thinking. Your goal appears to be advancing your personal agenda.

-Deerslayer

I must admit, the argument is riveting, however...

I may be somewhat new to the forum here, but that's good in that I am an unbiased observer. I have read numerous posts from both both of you DCHall, and Deerslayer, and repect the opinions of both of you.

DCHall may have originally omitted some facts that he was unaware of. He may also have misinterpreted other real, legitimate facts. But he genuinely seems apologetic for this, and has clearly stated that he is willing to look at any information you have, Deerslayer. At no time have I gotten the impresssion that DCHall is trying to intentionally distort these facts or provide misleading information. He is, however, EXPRESSING his opinion. I thought that was part of the purpose of the board in the first place.

As I understand it, the debate over Milorganite and similar products has been an ongoing battle. It's not likely to ever be settled. Be that as it may, I think this discussion should have a thread of its own (again), so that those of us following the "CGM Revisted" thread can find what we were looking for.

Thank you. I hope you can end your disagreement on civil terms.

Point well taken, brizzintx. Opinions are appropriate for this forum if identified as such.

What irritates me is when someone manipulates facts to support their opinion. Like I said earlier, I've made the same comments regarding the Washington list in the past. Here's a link to my April comments:

Washington List

DCHall continues to choose to omit relevant facts and product bash. Besides, he admits that he does this with the Washington list and other information if it suits his purpose. I don't understand how you can say that the omission was unintentional.

-Deerslayer

I do not claim to know the scope of DCHall's knowledge. Therefore, I can't say if any omission on his part is intentional, or not.

I also am not entirely familiar with the Washington List, nor the Clemson article on "Nitrogen in Soil" that you mention in that thread. Therefore, I can't even determine for myself if there is anything he (or anyone else, for that matter) may or may not have omitted.

I think the bottom line is that for some people, the source for Milorganite is cause for concern. You can provide them will all the facts that the product is safe, heavy metals are removed or levels are lowered enough to pose no health risk. But the bottom line to them is that crap is still crap.

Personally, I don't use Milorganite. Do I really think there is any significant health threat to me, my pets, or my kids? No. Would I give it a chance one day if I were unhappy with the result of compost and grains and such? Sure. But before I did, I would do my own research, and come to my own conclusions. I would not rely on secondhand statements, personal conclusions, regurgitated data, incomplete facts, etc...

When one is concerned about health and/or environmental aspects of a product, does one REALLY want to settle for what they've learned in a thread on a message board?

"I do not claim to know the scope of DCHall's knowledge. Therefore, I can't say if any omission on his part is intentional, or not."

The omission is contained in my original quote. The Washington list is a list of all of the fertilizers that meet the EPAs Exceptional Quality Standards and are considered safe for food production. He admits that he knows this. Besides, if you reference a list in a forum discussion, you should know the title of the list.

"I think the bottom line is that for some people, the source for Milorganite is cause for concern."

I agree with you. I don't have a problem with a legitimate opinion. Just don't present false or misleading information to support your opinion.

"I would not rely on secondhand statements, personal conclusions, regurgitated data, incomplete facts, etc..."

We're in agreement on that, too. However, many people don't have the time or inclination to perform their own detailed research. They are heavily influenced by what they read on forums like this. For them, reading the forum is their research.

As I said earlier, my issue is larger than the safety of Milorganite. It's about presenting honest information. I believe that the frequent posters on any forum have a responsibility to be as factual as possible...no spin and no omitted relevant facts. When I give an opinion, I always try to label it as such if I think it may be interpreted as something other than an opinion. Also, I don't consider these discussions a political debate where opponents selectively pick and choose information to support their position. It's not about winning and loosing arguments. It's about sharing information. Finally, I do not consider forums such as this an appropriate place to bash products or other people's methods.

-Deerslayer

I understand what you're saying, but I haven't taken any of DCHall's posts that way. Again, I'm new to the forum, and its obvious your opinions of him go back longer than I've been around.

My initial post was in regards to returning this thread back to its original subject, but I have a suspicion it's too late for that.

Good luck to both of you in your debate. Have a good weekend. I only read the board throughout the week while I'm at work. Saturdays and Sundays I'm too busy with the kids (and the yard, of course.)

"If" and "fertilizer" are the operative words and remember that you stated "pure grains" initially. Show me where pure corn, alfala, and soybean meal are listed. Note, I'm not referring to commercial products that contain grains as ingredients.

For those of you who cannot find them, here are three pure grains on the Washington list.

HI-YIELD COTTONSEED MEAL 6-1-1
NATURAL ACID-LOVER FERTILIZER COTTONSEED MEAL 4-3-6
NATURAL ROSE FERTILIZER ALFALFA MEAL 1-1-8

Ive never seen the products so I dont know whats listed on the bag. Purity is expected to vary.

As for the heavy metal supplements my statements were absolutely intentional. The materials I mentioned previously may or may not be fertilizers, but they are supplemented with heavy metals for use in the garden. How can you interpret PHYTO-PLUS COBALT 3% as anything else but a supplement of cobalt?

I pointed out that you omitted relevant information regarding the Washington list in August of 2006 and again in April of this year. You totally ignored those posts and made the same misleading comments in this thread.

People come and go on GardenWeb all the time. When that happens it may appear like someone is ignoring you, me, or others. Most of us dont take it personally.

Many people that read these threads approach turf care as a science with facts and evidence. Opinions are of little value in science. Clearly, you do not subscribe to this thinking. Your goal appears to be advancing your personal agenda.

I do not agree with the assertion that science knows a lot about soils. The current state of the art about soil science speaks about microbes doing this and that in nonspecific terms. The recent discovery of 100,000 MORE microbe species than the 50 previously known has complicated the study.

My point was that your comments are misleading to the casual reader. All of the products on that list meet the Exceptional Quality Standards of the EPA.

I disagree with both sentences. If you can prove the second one, then we can discuss the first.

The fact that you add spin and intentionally omit relevant information has severely damaged your credibility as far as I'm concerned. I can no longer accept anything you post at face value.

And I live for your approval. Now what will I do? Just so you know, I do not take your dislike of me personally, and I still value your input even when it includes your opinion. I think most of us understand that the things we say here are shaped by our experience which includes education and personal research. We form opinions from our experience and they find their way into what we say and write. It can't be helped. I've seen many great garden writers kicked off this list for their opinions.

The omission is contained in my original quote. The Washington list is a list of all of the fertilizers that meet the EPAs Exceptional Quality Standards and are considered safe for food production. He admits that he knows this. Besides, if you reference a list in a forum discussion, you should know the title of the list.

I disagree with all this, too. Looking back at it, Im not sure you and I are looking at the same list. The title of the list Im reading is as follows:

Appendix A. Metals Concentrations of Commercial Fertilizers
As reported by the registrant for the registration period beginning July 1, 2004.

The information you believe to be of utmost importance, EPA quality standards, is not mentioned in the report Im looking at. You keep bringing these standards up. You saidWhat you fail to disclose is that all of the fertilizers on that list meet the EPAs Exceptional Quality standards. That means that all of the fertilizers are considered safe for growing crops for human consumption. Clearly, all of them are safe for using on lawns."

Your statement about this particular standard is not quite accurate. I could hypothesize that you are familiar with the standard and are purposely exaggerating, or you are unfamiliar with the standard and are speaking from relative ignorance, or you are giving an opinion about what you wish the standard to be. But I am going to presume that you are looking at a different report than I'm looking at.

I am going to leave it to you to go out and find the definition of the EPA exceptional quality standard and report back here. I think you should be the one to report your research because I am clearly biased. Please let the rest of the readers know what you find. Also, if you dont mind, please tell us all the different classifications the EPA uses in your favorite fertilizer standards. Until then lets just say that you are the one misleading the readers.

rutgers1,

Thanks for your report on this. How deep were the containers? If you are inclined to try again I'd be interested in a how SBM and a synthetic does.

I've recently switched over from "chicken poop" stuff to SBM and the SBM is doing a much better job. The chicken poop worked but the SBM is producing nicer looking shade of green.

"For those of you who cannot find them, here are three pure grains on the Washington list.

HI-YIELD COTTONSEED MEAL 6-1-1
NATURAL ACID-LOVER FERTILIZER COTTONSEED MEAL 4-3-6
NATURAL ROSE FERTILIZER ALFALFA MEAL 1-1-8"

I can't believe that you made the above statement. How can pure cotton seed meal be both 6-1-1 and 4-3-6? I've never seen alfalfa meal listed at 1-1-8. Here's a link to an N-P-K list.

N-P-K List

Please post a link to the N-P-K source that you used as the basis for classifying the above as "pure grains".

"As for the heavy metal supplements my statements were absolutely intentional."

Perhaps we are using different definitions of the term supplements. I think you meant fertilizers that had heavy metals added, not heavy metal supplements.

I also think you may be using a different definition for heavy metals. Living organisms require trace amounts of some heavy metals (chemistry definition), including cobalt, iron, manganese, vanadium, and strontium.

Normally, heavy metals in lawn care refer to the toxic heavy metals such as mercury, lead, and cadmium.

In addition to cobalt, there are a number of fertilizers that have iron added which is also a heavy metal from a chemistry standpoint.

"Looking back at it, I'm not sure you and I are looking at the same list."
Perhaps we were looking at different lists. Please post a link to your list.

"I am going to leave it to you to go out and find the definition of the EPA exceptional quality standard and report back here."
It appears that you Googled it and couldn't find it. Here it is.

{{gwi:1105352}}

The above is a summary from the Milorganite website. If you don't believe it, look up the regulations.

Now I'll wait for the N-P-K source that you used as the basis for your "pure grain" comment. Please report back here. "Until then let's just say that you are the one misleading the readers." (Your words)

I hope we can end this soon. I think the readers are growing weary of this squabbling.

-Deerslayer

I don't think there are more than two readers left. I don't mind getting at the truth between you and me. And, just to remind you of how this started, the truth is that I do not use Milorganite because there are too many metals in it. If we keep going like this, we may end up solving third world hunger before we understand each other on metals.

If you have a problem with the way the manufacturers label their grain products, please take it up with them. This grains thing is a pure distraction. What point were you trying to make me make with that grains distraction anyway? If I was to make a point relative to grains and metals, I would say they that they have metals but not many. If the Washington state report does not include the entire spectrum of pure ground grains, that is not my responsibility. Are you going to argue that pure ground grains have more metals in them than Milorganite? Or that they are even close?

I have a feeling you are not ever going to reach the same point I wanted you to reach on the exceptional quality standards. The point being that the EPA EQ (Exceptional Quality) standard applies only to sewage sludge, not to all the fertilizers on the list. I believe you were trying to put those words into my mouth earlier. I have not "admitted" that all the fertilizers on the list met the EQ standard and I would not because I know better. While all the fertilizers on the list MAY coincidentally satisfy the same standard used for sewage sludge, the standard only applies to Milorganite because it is made from sewage. Bottled ketchup also meets the standard but it does not apply and would not be considered as meeting the EPA EQ. And please don't ask me questions about ketchup. In any event there was nothing mentioned in the Washington state metals report about the EPA EQ standard. Besides that, it is not as if there is a lot of complexity to that standard. If you meet the standard then you get the EQ stamp. If you don't, you get a non-EQ stamp. So it is more of a pass/fail standard than a range from poor, good, better, best, exceptional.

My definition of metals comes from the same EPA list that you presented from the Milorganite site. I realize that we need some metals to survive and that they are included in vitamin pills, but the heavies are a problem when you get too much. I have heard of people eating Milorganite as if to demonstrate the safety. Not me.

I my link to the Washington state report in my reply to this thread on Friday. You can find the link there. Please take a look and if you have a link to a different list, I'm interested in reading whatever you have.

DChall,

It could be inferred from the following post that you had a favorable opinion of Milgranite once upon a time:

Past Opinion

I am curious what altered your opinion?

I agree that the grain issue is a distraction but it is also another example of one of your false statements. It is impossible for 100% cottonseed meal to have two N-P-K values as different as the ones you posted. I'm surprised that you didn't know this. But I agree with you, it is a side issue. In fact most of this thread has dealt with side issues.

Let's go back to the very beginning. Your post that started all this indicated.

1. Milorganite is incinerated.
2. The process for making Milorganite "is more like the process of firing clay to make china than any other process I (DCHall) can think of.".
3. You implied that Milorganite doesn't contain any protein

I maintain that all of the above are false and have offered proof to that effect in this thread.

I also think that your 20 out of 4,000 statement is very misleading when you omit the fact that all 4,000 are considered safe for food production regardless as to whether this fact is coincidental or intentional. That is my opinion.

Hopefully, we can end it here.

BTW, my favorite fertilizer is SBM.

-Deerslayer

Chadm, try to count the number of false statements in the last post in the "Past Opinion" thread. In all fairness, that post is over two years old.

-Deerslayer

If you read that message to the end, I was clearly under the belief that Milorganite had zero metals in it. When I say zero, I meant relatively low to the same levels that ordinary cattle manure compost would have "zero" metals. What changed my mind was the Washington State report that we have been talking about here. Prior to reading that report I had been listening to the "incinerated sewage sludge salesmen" about their product.

Deerslayer is correct in correcting part of what I said. The list from Washington State only includes the 1,700 or so fertilizers that passed their testing and are allowed to be sold in the state. I learned that in this discussion. If I make that same error in the future, please refer me back to this thread. The Washington report did not cover the 1,300 others that did not pass. Milorganite is apparently superior to nearly half of the products when you consider its ranking among the 4,000.

As for the three items on your short list remaining, I have finally found the information you might have provided earlier regarding the heating process of the Milorganite product. On their home page there is a link to how the product is made. I thought at first it was a link to the graphic, but it is a link to a video. In that video they explain that the products is not burned to ash but only heated to the point of killing the pathogens. If I had had that info last week (and here I am believing the salesman again), we could have put this to rest.

1. Milorganite is incinerated.

When something goes through an incinerator that material is commonly referred to as having been incinerated. EPA requires an incinerator and Milorganite uses one. Since nobody had any information about the heating process more than the use of an incinerator, I was of the belief that the resulting product was the ash of the microbes, not a dried microbe. In the four years since I wrote that other comment, nobody has come forth with the information you presented regarding the low heat. Although for some reason there does seem to be a faint memory of the heating process, but I can't remember where or when. I write a lot late at night.

2. The process for making Milorganite "is more like the process of firing clay to make china than any other process I (DCHall) can think of.".

As far as I knew it was. Now I know, or think I know, differently. As you pointed out it is more like cooking chicken. Actually after looking at the video, it is more like drying clothes.

3. You implied that Milorganite doesn't contain any protein

I said that because that was my belief - just as you apparently believed that all the products on the Washington State list were there because they met the EPA exceptional quality standard. We generally write the things we believe. This protein revelation finally explains to me how Milorganite works. What would you think of the effectiveness of a fertilizer that you believed to consist of ash?

Regarding the grains, apparently you have missed my explanation of that the previous two times. I have never seen the products. The report named the name on the bag. I tend to believe what I read from the manufacturer unless I have other information. As a matter of fact, grain from one field, or from one stalk, will have different nutritional values than the next one. The differences in the products listed on the report are striking but I'm not going to second guess them at this point. I believe there are other websites where you can view bag advertising versus test results. Since we were really discussing metals I didn't think the pursuit of a grain discussion was really relevant. I did think I remembered seeing several corn gluten meal products in that list, but it must have been a different list. The point was the Washington report covers a very wide range of fertilizer products from the organic (maybe) to the waste materials. There are other reports around that Washington site that discuss the use of metal waste material in fertilizers.

"I have finally found the information you might have provided earlier regarding the heating process of the Milorganite product."

I stated that Milorganite was heated to slightly over 180F in a high temperature furnace at 840-1200F. I also pointed out that it was not incinerated. You are correct that I didn't describe the drying process.

"Regarding the grains, apparently you have missed my explanation of that the previous two times. I have never seen the products. The report named the name on the bag."

That may be so but the titles that you posted contained the N-P-K values of the products. You don't need any more information if you know the N-P-K values of the pure grains in question. For example, alfalfa meal has an N-P-K of 3-1-2. You posted:

"NATURAL ROSE FERTILIZER ALFALFA MEAL 1-1-8"

Obviously, the product is not 100% alfalfa. The values are too dissimilar for field to field variations to be the reason for the difference. I agree that this was a side issue and not very relevant to our discussion.

Your last post makes it clear that you did not intend to mislead readers. You simply didn't have all of the information.

In retrospect, I was too harsh with my accusations. I think we can put this to bed.

-Deerslayer

A good debate can enlighten everyone about the topic in question. (Unfortunately, in the internet age most don't engage in real debate, where data and facts are gathered and used to persuade. Now days people just throw out their opinions, increase the volume towards those who disagree and resort to name calling if for those who don't throw in the towel).

So, while I came to this thread late, let me congratulate our two debaters on exemplifying the merit of true debate. They dug up real info, used it effectively and thrashed things out until there was a consensus. They both apparently learned some things along the way and all those reading the thread certainly had a chance to learn a lot.

And ending it like gentlemen puts a cherry on top. ;)

I'll let you two fight it out over Millorganite! I always thought it wasn't recommended to use on edibles.

Anyway, back to corn gluten meal (CGM)...

CGM has about 60% protein, an NPK of around 10-0-0.

You got bushy thick grass because of its fertilizing properties, but it also acts as a pre-emergent on most of these weeds:

Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti)
Creeping bentgrass (Agrostis palustris)
Redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus)
Common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album)
Orchard grass (Dactylis glomerata)
Smooth crabgrass (Digitaria ischaemum)
Large crabgrass (Digitaria sanguinalis)
Barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crusgali)
Couch Grass (Elytrigia repens)
Wooly cupgrass (Eriochloa villosa)
Catchweed, Bedstraw, Goosegrass (Galium aparine)
Perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne)
Black medic (Medicago lupulina)
Annual bluegrass (Poa annua)
Buckhorn Plantain (Plantago lanceolata)
Purslane (Portulaca oleracea)
Curly dock (Rumex crispus)
Giant foxtail (Setaria faberi)
Yellow foxtail (Setaria lutescens)
Green foxtail (Setaria viridis)
Black nightshade (Solanum nigrum)
Shattercane (Sorghum bicolor)
Dandelions (Taraxacum spp.)

Of course, you need to apply it at the right time, usually early spring and I believe mid-late summer (Aug-Sept.)

Hope this helps.

'Mater Mark

Someone earlier, before things slipped into the Milorganite sludge, asked about GCM vs Soybean, in terms of use as an effective fertilizer.

Here, too, SBM is cheaper than GCM and I would be more likely to apply it more often (i.e. monthly, but not very thickly) than the GCM, which also leaves little orange dots everywhere :)

I am seeing good results with the Soybean meal. How much better is GCM?

I applied CGM this spring, and at the appropriate time. I have around 1 acre of grass, so it was very $$$. We had a spectacularly wet spring/summer in the northeast, and I also started mowing high this year. All those things came together to result in very green, healthy grass (for the most part) throughout the entire summer.

It also resulted in the thickest, healthiest crabgrass I've ever seen. Parts of my lawn that had significant crabgrass last fall have EXPLODED this year into extremely dense patches of same. Other parts of my lawn that weren't affected by crabgrass last year are now being invaded.

As an expensive fertilizer, I've been very happy with CGM. As a pre-emergent herbicide, my CGM experiment has been a spectacular failure. My guess is that the germinating crabgrass seeds didn't get a chance to dry out since it was constantly wet during the critical period.

I'll might try CGM again next spring, but I have some serious crabgrass removal (by hand) and bare-patch seeding + overseeding to do this fall, otherwise I fear crabgrass is going to dominate much more of my yard next year.