You got this one in under the wire.

This is one of those soils we like to see...it doesn't need anything major. Not a thing. All balances are perfect.

You might-could play with the boron levels but that's not really necessary on a lawn and unless you're an expert, it can be difficult. I'm not sure I'd bother.

Overall, follow normal feeding and watering practices, enjoy your perfect soil, and carry on.

Thanks morpheus -- this is so nice to hear! Well, I'm no expert and I have no idea what altering the boron levels would entail, so that's definitely one less thing for me to worry about.

I'm planning to apply winter fertilizer and have a final mow done this week. What are your thoughts on final mowing height? Normally it's cut to 3.5", but the conventional wisdom seems to be that it should be a lot shorter for the winter -- 2.5" which seems too low for my bumpy terrain. I'm thinking that 3" would be okay.

Dealer's choice on final mow height. For areas that get more than 55 days of snow cover average per year, it's recommended to go to 2.5" or a little shorter. That'll give you fewer issues with snow mold, on average.

If you get less than that magic number of days of snow cover, it doesn't matter. Personally, my average is about 10 days at a time, so I leave mine at 3.5" winter and summer. On the rare winters where...whoops...we get long-term snow cover, then the lawn simply takes the risk. And it's happened that snow mold infections spring up.

The usual result is that the grass takes a little longer to start growing in spring.

If you're unlucky enough to live in an area where pink snow mold is common, the advice differs (you're not, although it's not unheard-of in either of our areas, either). That will kill a lawn. There, if past infections have been an issue, always mow short for winter just in case.

Either way, 3" isn't what I'd call a bad compromise. :-)

One more thing before I start. I’m planning to use Expert Gardener 29-0-4 that I bought last year for winter fertilizer but didn’t get a chance to use. When I pulled a bag out of the back of garage this morning I saw that it’s labeled “slow release” which I realize isn’t appropriate for the last feeding. However, it’s what I have on hand, so my options are to forego fertilizing or use it. I searched this forum and elsewhere to see if there’s anything on using this particular fert as the final and didn’t come up with much.

Per the bag label, the 29% N is 4.35% slow release polymer coated N which surprised me - I assumed the percentage would be much, much higher for fertilizer to be considered slow release. By way of comparison, Scott’s Winterguard’s 32% N contains 6.8% “slowly available N from Methyleneureas” which gives me hope that it’s ok to use the Expert Gardener fert. That said, I could go either way - I’d love to see if a winter feed gives the lawn a leg up next season and gets me closer to my goal of more effective weed suppression and drought resistance, but I don’t want to screw it up. I can always use the fert some other time. Another thing, but I don’t think this is fatal assuming it’s ok to use EG. Today is the only day I can apply fertilizer and it’s not supposed to rain until Saturday. A shower is predicted midweek, but the likelihood is pretty low. My sense is that the window is closing so I don’t think I should put this off until my next time here which would be early next week.

What do you think? Thanks again for all your help!

I'd use it in your case; you're not in a heavy snow area, a long-term ground freeze zone, or the like. I use one with some slow release for that reason (it's rare that the lawn goes dormant at all).

Thanks for responding so quickly! I did a little further research and it seems that most winterizers have a small slow release component. With that and your feedback I’m good to go.

Usually, for some reason. I could never fathom why, really. Most years, straight urea is my go-to, this year is actually a bit unusual due to the virus as I went with what I could get locally and delivered to my doorstep. :-)

Marketing perhaps? Maybe the industry found that consumers believe a product that’s supposed to be active for 3 months provides more bang for their buck than one that’s probably more effective but doesn’t/can’t make the same claim. Not a terrible thing, I guess, other than contributing to my confusion!