Why volume ratios give six different answers
Search for a compost recipe and you will be told 2:1, 3:1, 4:1 or 30:1, sometimes by volume and sometimes by weight, usually without saying which. All of them are attempts to approximate one quantity: the ratio of carbon to nitrogen in the dry matter of the pile. Water carries neither. A wheelbarrow of fresh grass clippings is roughly 82% water by weight, so it contributes less than a fifth of its mass to the balance. A wheelbarrow of dry sawdust is about 39% water and weighs a fraction as much per unit volume in the first place. Two "equal" barrows are not remotely equal inputs.
The governing expression is an accounting identity rather than a model, which is the good news: there is nothing to calibrate and nothing to guess. For ingredients 1 through n, with wet mass W, moisture percent M, dry-matter carbon percent C and dry-matter nitrogen percent N:
R = Σ[ Wn × Cn × (100 − Mn) ] ÷ Σ[ Wn × Nn × (100 − Mn) ]
G = Σ( Wn × Mn ) ÷ Σ Wn
Both are linear in each W, so both invert exactly. Fix every ingredient but one, name a target, and the quantity of that last ingredient falls straight out with no iteration and no search. That is the Solve button on each row, and it is the question people actually arrive with: not "what is my ratio" but "how much more of this do I need".
How much brown material to add to reach 30:1
Rearranging Equation 5 for the mass of one ingredient x, given a target ratio R and the carbon and nitrogen sums of everything already in the pile:
Wx = ( R × ΣN − ΣC ) ÷ [ (100 − Mx) × Nx × (CNx − R) ]
The denominator sign is the whole story. If the feedstock you picked has a C:N below the target, it can only pull the mixture down — no positive quantity of it will ever raise the ratio to 30:1. The tool says so plainly rather than returning a negative number dressed up as an answer. The target has to lie between what the pile gives you now and what the new material gives you on its own.
Moisture is usually the binding constraint, not carbon
Work the two balances separately for the same pile and they rarely agree. Richard and Trautmann's worked example makes the point exactly: 10 kg of fresh grass clippings needs 3.5 kg of leaves to reach C:N 30:1, but 6.8 kg of the same leaves to reach 60% moisture. Add the smaller amount and the pile sits at 66% water; add the larger and the ratio drifts to about 37:1.
The published guidance for that conflict is direct: above roughly 60% moisture, water is the more critical variable, so err toward the high C:N side. A pile that is slightly carbon-heavy runs slow. A pile that is waterlogged goes anaerobic, and the difference is one you can smell from the far side of the garden. Below 60% moisture, optimise the ratio and add water as needed.
Bulk density and the porosity ceiling
A balanced ratio in a mixture that packs into a wet brick will still fail. Free air space is what keeps the pile aerobic, and bulk density is its usable proxy. A working ceiling of about 1,000 lb/yd³ (593 kg/m³) is the figure commonly given for feedstock mixes; above that, porosity is generally inadequate and a bulking agent is what fixes it. This tool estimates the mix density by adding masses and adding loose volumes.
That estimate is an upper bound on porosity, not a measurement. A real mixture is denser than its ingredients predict, because particles of different sizes intermingle and fill each other's voids. Treat the figure as "this is the best case, and the pile will be denser than this".
Where the numbers come from
Every feedstock figure on this page is transcribed from one table: Appendix A, Table A.1 of the On-Farm Composting Handbook (NRAES-54, Rynk ed., 1992, Northeast Regional Agricultural Engineering Service), "Typical characteristics of selected raw materials". Nothing is averaged with a second source, and no blog or forum figure has been mixed in. Where the appendix prints an Average row it is used; otherwise the Typical row; where that cell is a printed range, its midpoint. The recommended windows are Rynk's Table 3.1, and the mixture equations are Richard and Trautmann's for the Cornell Waste Management Institute.
The appendix itself carries a warning worth repeating: its ranges and averages "should not be considered as the true ranges or averages, just representative values". A sample of your own material will differ. Every moisture and density field on this page is editable for exactly that reason, and moisture is the field most worth measuring yourself — weigh a sample, dry it, weigh it again.
Note 1 — rows where the appendix's own averages are mutually impossible
Five rows carry a marker in the table below. For those, multiplying the published average %N by the published average C:N gives a dry-matter carbon fraction above 60%, which no biomass reaches. Sawdust is the clearest case: 0.24% N at 442:1 implies 106% carbon. The two figures are averages taken over different underlying studies, which the appendix says outright.
This does not break the calculation. Carbon percent never appears on its own in the mixture equation — it enters only as the product of the ratio and the nitrogen percent, so the result is a nitrogen-weighted mean of the components' C:N ratios and stays well defined. It does mean the nitrogen figure for those rows carries more uncertainty than the others, and a pile dominated by one of them is worth checking against a lab analysis. This page shows no carbon percentage anywhere, because for those rows there is no honest one to show.