That is what I can't understand here. Marcos claims to use compost at times, then comes after me for suggesting using compost. It appears he simply has a problem with anyone who has a dissenting opinion. Witness his childish rants in multiple forums against people who disagree with him. I feel using feed grains simply shifts the problem from one location to another. It is not solving anything. This is especially true when there are more attractive alternatives (i.e. waste products like compost, feather meal, bone meal, blood meal). I have said time and time again, to the point of being a broken record, that compost is only part of the solution, may not be suitable in certain soils, may be most successful when bridged with chems, ect.... However the part compost plays is essential in any organic program that is geared towards moving a system toward self-sustainability (i.e. a closed system). If that is not the goal of organic land management then what is? IMO, almost every organic program should start with compost. Sadly people like Marcos, Ted, and all their buddies don't care about what is actually stated, or what actually works, but instead only care about picking sides based on some idiotic political line they think exists. As you have pointed out, the type of compost may or may not be appropriate for the situation. This is where I was going with the question, reasons why a particular compost may not be suitable for a given site as it applies to building and managing soil. Instead I get the same lame excuses with not a single a viable reason for not using compost. I guess dumping all that organic matter in land fills is a better solution .... well at least to Marcos et. al. it is.