Hi Alex, Pancakes are yummy. But rather than try to calculate how yummy they are, I will return to the Boron and zinnias thing. First, I will try to provide some solid justification for the 0.25 ppm elemental Boron figure. That figure appears several places on the Web, but I think the basis for it is this study by Redington and Peterson. All we can see on that page is the Abstract, but that is sufficient, as it provides this statement. "Boron was investigated as the possible cause of bud blasting and non-development in Zinnia elegans. Blasting is characterized by a blackening of the developed bud as a result of necrosis of the scales, unopened calyx and enclosed tissue. Plants were subjected to boron levels of 0, 0.0025, 0.025, 0.25 and 2.5 ppm. Plants grown without added boron and at the lowest level supplied showed extreme new leaf chlorosis, thickening and distortion of older leaves, stunted growth and abnormal flower development including blasting. Plants grown at 0.025 ppm level showed moderate chlorosis and, to a slight extent, the other deficiency symptoms. Plants were healthiest when grown at the 0.25 level of boron. Boron at 2.5 ppm produced plants with marginal leaf necrosis, reduced height and root weight, and slower flowering when compared to the 0.25 treatment level. Analysis of boron in plant tissue confirmed that decreased levels of boron in the medium resulted in decreased levels of boron in various plant tissues." The bold emphasis was provided by me, because that is the justification for the 0.25 ppm Boron target. I provide elemental Boron via boric acid, and that is the main ingredient of the insecticide you have on hand. The chemical formula for boric acid is H3BO3. Wikipedia provides this information about boric acid. From which we glean that its molecular weight is 61.83302 and the fraction of elemental B to boric acid is 10.811 / 61.83302 = 0.1748 rounded to four figures. There are 4.92892 milliliters in a teaspoon, so our 1/4 teaspoon of boric acid in the gallon of stock solution is 1.23223 ml. Next comes a tricky part, converting that volume of boric acid into a weight of Boron. Wikipedia gave the density of pure Boric acid as 1.435 grams per cc, which is considerably more dense than water. But that figure is for the solid material and we have a powder, which includes quite a bit of entrained air. If you drop a quarter teaspoon of boric acid into water, you will notice that the "glob" floats. I eliminated the surface tension of water as the explanation by replacing the water with some water to which a small amount of Dawn dishwashing liquid was added. Same result. The glob of boric acid powder continued to float, admittedly quite low in the water. If I had a laboratory balance, the simple solution would be to drop 1/4 teaspoon of boric acid powder onto the scale and see how much it weighed. That would give us a good figure for the density of the powder as well as the weight of boric acid powder and, by multiplying by the 0.1748 factor, the mass of elemental Boron in the gallon of stock solution. I will probably purchase an inexpensive laboratory scale in the future (I am curious what some of my zinnia seeds weigh, and I have several trace element chelate powders that I need to weigh). But for the time being, I will make an estimate for the density of my boric acid powder. The glob floated rather low in the water, so, for the time being, I will use an estimate (guess) of 0.9 for the specific gravity of my boric acid powder. So, with that estimate, we can calculate: 1/4 teaspoon = 1.23223 ml x 0.9 g/ml = 1.109007 grams of Boric acid in the gallon of stock solution. And multiplying that by the weight ratio (0.1748) of elemental Boron to Boric acid, gives us an estimate of 0.1939 grams of elemental Boron in the one gallon of stock solution. We note that accepting that 1 ml of water weighs 1 gram and assuming that our stock solution density does not vary significantly from that, we can say: 1 US gallon = 3.7854 liters = 3785.4 ml = 3785.4 grams. Therefore we can say that our stock solution contains 0.1939 grams elemental Boron per 3785.4 grams of solution, which amounts to 5.1223 x 10-5 grams B per gallon. We want the concentration of Boron in the plant water to be the target value of 0.25 grams Boron per 1,000,000 grams of plant water. Let's do a little algebra, and let y represent the grams of elemental B in a gallon of plant water. So lets equate that concentration to the target concentration. y / 3785.4 = 0.25 / 1000000 Solving that equation for y: y = 0.25 x 3785.4 / 1000000 = .00094635 grams of Boron in a gallon of plant water. Now lets solve algebraically for the amount of stock solution, S, needed to supply that much elemental Boron. .000051223 grams B per gram of stock x S = .00094635 grams B S = .00094635 / .000051223 = 18.475 grams of stock solution per gallon of plant water Assuming that the density of stock solution doesn't vary much from the density of pure water, lets convert 18.475 grams of stock solution to a more useful form. 18.475 grams x ( 1 gallon / 3785.4 grams ) x (16 cups / gallon) = .07809 cups Its not practical to use that small a fraction of cups, so let's convert that to tablespoons. .07809 cups x (16 tablespoons / cup ) = 1.249 tablespoons So, if I haven't made some kind of stupid mistake, the target Boron level in the plant water is achieved by including only about 1.25 tablespoons or 3.75 teaspoons of stock solution in a gallon of plant water. And that is subject to how well my estimate of 0.9 specific gravity for the Boron powder fits reality. If these results are reasonably correct, I have been overdosing my zinnias by a factor of 2 or 3 on Boron. Fortunately, I would have to overdose them by a factor of 10 to see the phytotoxicity reported in the Redington and Peterson reference. I have convinced myself that I need some sort of little weighing device. I'm sure glad this message didn't get "technical". Now I have a craving for pancakes. ZM This post was edited by zenman on Wed, Oct 8, 14 at 23:48

Hi Al, this is Iris. I was referring to your 2011 "Growing for Beginners" post when I mentioned adding heads. I thought it was so informative and had not read it before. I added some heads and broke out some of your paragraphs so the text is broken up a bit and more digestible. I don't know however how to attach a word document to this forum. I will try to copy and paste as much as will fit here as a comment. I hope it doesn't put off your following. Once you review this let me know and I will delete it so it doesn't distract your readers. The editor who will work on your book when you get to it will do much more but this is a taste of how it could work! An Overview for Beginners color>size> My hope is that this thread becomes a gathering place for beginners and the experienced alike, a place where reliable information that is rooted in sound science and horticulture can be found. We will see how that 'gathering' part goes, but I have enjoyed enthusiastic participation on many of my other threads on this and other fora, so I am optimistic. What I Can Offer (or you could retitle Why I do What I do or Some Background) As I consider what I am going to share with you and how to go about sharing it, I am compelled to offer some background that will hopefully allow some degree of comfort in placing some measure of value on my commentary. I enjoy the growing experience tremendously. I have worked hard toward increasing my skill level for more than 20 years, and I look at sharing what I have learned about the growing sciences as a natural extension of the enjoyment I get from nurturing plants - sort of nurturing people who nurture plants. I am invited to lecture frequently in the mid-MI area, and occasionally beyond. I lecture, conduct workshops, and do demonstrations on a variety of subjects related to growing, but most frequently I talk about things related to container culture, with maintaining houseplants being one of the most requested topics. I also enjoy participating here at Garden Web and at another popular garden forum sites. Hopefully we will be using some links to some of my other offerings here that will help you share some of the confidence others have shown in the reliability of my offerings. Those that know me know I am not after recognition or glory, I simply feel I can help any beginner with a willingness to learn and apply the newfound information, and I get a large measure of personal satisfaction from the feeling I may have helped someone along the path to becoming a better grower. Container Growing: Doing What is Best for the Plant, Removing Limitations The first challenge is to offer information that a beginner can digest, and in such a way that he or she feels it is important enough to act on. I am first going to flesh out the main issues that, if understood, will make anyone a better grower and hope I have created enough interest that there will be plenty of questions so I can go into greater detail in the answers. For what it is worth, I tend to look at growing anything in containers from the perspective of what is best for the plant, not what is best for the grower. Far more often than not, the two ideas are mutually exclusive, so if grower convenience is a large priority of anyone reading this, there is not much sense in reading on. Growing well does take a little thought and a little effort. The houseplants we grow are perennials nearly all, capable of growing for many, many years and of being passed from generation to generation. With attention to the areas I will cover in this post, you will discover that you can maintain your plants in good health for as long as you continue to commit to providing favorable cultural conditions. Your plants are all genetically programmed by Mother Nature to grow well and look beautiful. It is only a lack of knowledge and skill in the area of providing the cultural conditions they prefer that prevents them from growing to their potential. That sounds harsh, but it is the truth. I have never seen anyone other than me discuss growing plants in containers from this perspective, that is (and it bears repeating) your plants are already genetically programmed to grow well and look beautiful, but it is up to you as a grower to eliminate the limitations so often associated with growing in containers. This post is about isolating some of the factors that are commonly the most limiting and helping you to reduce the limiting effects. For more information on the concept of limiting effects, do a search using the words "Liebig's Law of the Minimum" or follow this embedded link to How Plant Growth is Limited additional discussion. Choosing Soil Growers should realize that the most important choice they will make when establishing a new planting or when repotting is their choice of soil. A poor soil is probably behind more than 90% of the issues that growers come to the forums seeking remedial help for. Collapsed or dead plants, spoiled foliage, insect infestations, disease issues are all symptoms usually traceable directly or indirectly to a poor soil. This is so important to understand, that I will devote the bulk of my effort toward making it clear why I offer this contention. The Importance of Light Light is extremely important to plants. Plants make their own food, using water, CO2, and energy from the sun. Inadequate light means the plant cannot make enough food to grow to the potential for which it was genetically programmed. I will not go into great detail about light because when it comes to houseplants; you either have good light or are forced to deal with the limiting effects of inadequate light. If the thread finds favor, we can discuss supplementing light and how to prune to help compensate for the leggy appearance caused by insufficient light, or explore other topics of interest relating to light. Supplementing Nutrition Nutrition supplementation is a requirement for normal growth and good health when growing plants in containers. In the earth, many of the nutrients are supplied by minerals in the soil. Container soils usually have no mineral component (and it is best that they do not in most cases - more later), and the soil components break down so slowly and are washed from the soil so quickly that deficiencies are virtually assured if you do not fertilize. Choice of fertilizer is also an important consideration, as we will see. Repotting versus Potting Up That there is a difference between the two operations is a concept foreign to most hobby growers. One of the practices ensures your plants will at least have the opportunity to grow to their genetic potential within the limits of other cultural conditions; that would be repotting, with its accompanying root maintenance, complete or partial bare-rooting, and a change of soil. Potting up, on the other hand, only temporarily allows the plant to grow a little closer to its genetic potential before root congestion and a diminished number of fine roots quickly returns the plant to the state of limited growth and vitality it was experiencing before potting up. Watering Best Practices and the Significance of Air Watering habits - extremely important and inextricably linked to soil choice, which is why I saved it until the end of this, the short list - so it would lead me back to the most important consideration - the one most apt to determine the difference between frustration and a rewarding growing experience. Air is as important as water in all soils plants are to be grown in. Plants absolutely love plenty of air in the root zone, and rebel very quickly at too much water in the soil. I am going to describe what happens when you water plants growing in a soil that retains too much water. There are actually two possibilities. The first is, you water, and a part of the soil near the bottom of the container does not drain. This water has a name, it is called 'perched water', so named because it 'perches' (like a bird) in the soil above the pot bottom. This excess water is critically important because it very quickly begins to kill roots growing near the bottom of the pot - within hours. The first roots to die are the roots that do the lion's share of the work - the very fine roots often referred to as 'hair roots'. The longer the soil remains saturated, the larger the diameter of the roots killed. When air finally returns to this once saturated soil, roots can only then begin to regenerate. This takes energy and is extremely expensive for the plant in terms of energy outlay. During the cyclic death and regeneration of roots associated with excessively water-retentive soils, the plant is actually forced by chemical messengers that tell it to 'grow roots', to direct energy that would have otherwise gone into growing more leaves, branches, blooms, fruit, or just increasing the overall mass of the plant, to replacing the lost roots. The second thing that might happen when you water if you are using a water retentive soil is, you adopt the practice of watering in 'small sips' so the soil remains damp instead of wet; this, to guard against root rot. It makes sense to only give the plant a little water at a time so the soil never gets soggy - right? That might be a workable option if you have the luxury of using water that has been processed through a reverse osmosis water filtering system, or if you are watering with distilled water, but regular tap water has things dissolved in it, like magnesium, calcium, iron, sulfur, and others. If you water in 'sips', these dissolved solids remain in the soil and build up over time. This has an impact on the plant's ability to absorb water and the nutrients dissolved in water. To illustrate the potential impact these dissolved solids have on a plant, picture in your mind what curing salt does to ham or bacon. It literally pulls water from the cells & dries out the meat. Any solutes (anything dissolved) in the solution surrounding plant roots can have the same potential effect on plant cells. It can make it difficult for plants to absorb water and nutrients, it can make it impossible, and in some cases can actually reverse the flow of water so it moves OUT of cells, effectively collapsing and killing them. We commonly call this 'fertilizer burn', but it does not necessarily have to result from an over-application of fertilizer. When people come here wanting a remedy for foliage that is dying, with dried edges & tips, almost always it is the result of over-watering exacerbated by water-retentive soils and the accompanying limitation that has on root function and metabolism, or as a result of the presence of a high level of dissolved solids from fertilizers and tap water having accumulated in the soil making it difficult for the plant to take up water. Both are so closely related to poor, water-retentive soils we can say the problem is inherent if not addressed directly. Misting cannot correct a problem related to over-watering or a high level of solutes in your plant's soil. Low humidity can be a contributing factor to the common symptoms of necrotic (dead) leaf tips and margins (edges), but for the actual cause, look to impaired root function from over-watering or a high level of dissolved solids in the soil. BOTH of these conditions are nearly always linked to a poor soil. Misting raises humidity for a few minutes, but there are almost 1,500 minutes in a day. Raising humidity for 10 of the 1,500 has virtually no impact on the plant's ability to keep foliage hydrated. If you have foliage with burned leaf tips and margins, you should look to the soil and the state of root health for the cause. When using water-retentive soils, it seems almost as though we are on the horns of a dilemma. If we water generously, we risk the soil remaining saturated so long it causes root rot, or at a minimum - impaired root function. If we water sparingly, in small sips, we risk an accumulation of dissolved solids from tap water and fertilizer solutions in the soil - so what to do? Well - I think we should look at an option that solves both issues and makes things much easier for the grower, while also providing the grower with considerably more latitude when it comes to watering and fertilizing. Selecting the Right Soil The factor that determines how water retentive and difficult a soil is to grow in, is the size of the particles it is made from. The smaller the particles - the greater the water retention and the greater the degree of difficulty for growers. Soils made of any combination of peat, coir, compost, sand, topsoil, and other fine particulates are going to be very water retentive, which we know is undesirable from the perspective of the plant, and they cannot be suitably amended to correct drainage or the height of the perched water by adding perlite or other drainage material. If anyone disagrees with that statement, please ask for an explanation before mounting an argument or offering individual observations. Adding perlite to soils reduces the overall water retention of the soil, the reduction usually being a plus, but it does nothing measurable for drainage (flow-through rates) or the height of the perched water table, the later being the critical consideration when it comes to a healthy root zone. Soils made of a high % of pine bark or other inorganic particles will have plenty of large air spaces called macropores. These are pores that will not hold water, only air, even when the soil is as saturated is it can be. They are critical to a healthy root zone. If you build a soil with plenty of air space, it hardly matters what the soil is made from. What is important is how the soil is structured. I will grow a perfectly healthy plant in a bucket of broken glass on a dare and a wager if anyone is interested in taking me up on it. If you have a soil with a healthy structure, a good nutritional supplementation program, and have good available light, the rest is so easy anyone can do it - honest. I have seen it happen over & over and over again. You will not go wrong if your primary focus is providing a healthy - a truly healthy environment for roots. Roots are the heart of the plant. Roots come first. If you cannot keep the roots happy, there is no chance you can keep the rest of the plant happy. That was a paraphrased quote from Dr. Carl Whitcomb, PhD, who wrote the bible on "Plant Production in Containers". This ends the beginning discussion about soils. Until you are able to grow plants, the growth rate and appearance of which you are happy with, focusing on removing the limitations placed on your plants by soil choice will almost always constitute the best use of your energies. After reading this far, if nothing else, I hope you take that concept from this offering. It is the most important point and the best piece of advice I can give you. If you are interested in knowing HOW to make soils that will help you remove the limitations, now is the time to ask. Fertilizing Your Plant Nutrition is an area that is very misunderstood when it comes to container culture, but it is actually very easy. It is also very easy to become confused because there are so many numbers that represent different fertilizer NPK percentages and so many different kinds of fertilizers. I will need to use some numbers, but I think an understanding of NPK percentages as opposed to fertilizer RATIOS is important. NPK %s tell us how much (N)itrogen, (P)hosphorous pentoxide, and (K) potassium oxide (the symbol for potassium is 'K') are in a fertilizer by weight. So a fertilizer that is labeled "All Purpose 24-8-16" is 24% nitrogen, 8% phosphorous, and 16% potassium. 12-4-8 is also a common "all-purpose" fertilizer. It has exactly half the nutrients of 24-8-16, but both are 3:1:2 RATIO fertilizers. Ratios are a way of describing the amount of nutrients in a fertilizer as they relate to each other. Why is this important? It is important because we know that on average, plants use about 6 times as much N as P, and they use about 3/5 as much K as N, and now I will tell you how we can use this information to our plant's advantage. The ideal way to fertilize is to supply fertilizer at the same ratio in which plants use the nutrients. The reason is because optimal growth and vitality can be had only when nutrients are in the soil at overall levels low enough that it does not become difficult for plants to take up water and nutrients dissolved in that water. Remember what we said above about a high level of soluble in the soil making it difficult for roots to absorb water and nutrients? Nutrients also need to be present at levels high enough to prevent deficiencies. If we think about it for a second, we can see that the best way to achieve this end is to supply nutrients at the same ratio in which they are used. I noted that the NPK percentages actually tell us how much phosphorous pentoxide and potassium oxide are in a fertilizer so I can show you how fertilizer manufacturers arrived at a 3:1:2 ratio as their "all-purpose" blend. Only 43% of the P reported on a fertilizer label is actually P, and only 83% of the K reported is actually K. Once you apply these factors to any of the 3:1:2 ratio fertilizers (24-8-16, 12-4-8, and 9-3-6 are all popular 3:1:2 ratios), you will see they supply nutrients in almost exactly the same ratios as the average that plants actually use, and these fertilizers are excellent at keeping the overall level of solubles as low as they can be without creating nutritional deficiencies. There is no need to use 'specialty' fertilizers; and many specialty fertilizers, like the advertised "bloom boosters" with up to 30 times more phosphorous than a plant could ever use (in relation to the amount of N used), can be (almost always are) moderately to severely limiting because the excess nutrients are a limiting factor. The question often arises, "Should I use a synthetic or an organic fertilizer"? The answer is: "Use whichever you wish"; but the qualifiers are: Organic fertilizers are actually more accurately called soil amendments. They are mixed into the soil in the hope that at some point soil organisms will digest them and make them available in elemental form so plants can absorb them. The problem with that approach is that the populations and activity levels of soil life populations in containers are erratic and unreliable, making the delivery of nutrients from organic sources just as erratic and unreliable. What you apply today, may not be available until next month, and there is no way to determine what residual amounts of which elements remain in the soil. Soluble fertilizers like Miracle-Gro and others are completely available as soon as applied, and we know exactly what our plants are getting. They are simply much easier to use and deliver nutrients much more reliably than other fertilizer types. You can lump controlled release fertilizers like Osmocote and others in with the soluble synthetic fertilizers. With them, you get an extra measure of convenience but sacrifice a measure of control. As with all fertilizers, it is important to note the NPK percentages to be sure you are supplying the fertilizer in a favorable ratio if you want your plants to be all they can be. When it comes right down to what occurs at the molecular/cellular levels, plants take up nutrients in elemental form. They cannot absorb the nutrients that are locked in the hydrocarbon chains that make up organic fertilizers until the molecules are broken down into their most basic elemental form. At that point, all nutrients are taken up as salts, and all are in the same form, no matter if they came from compost, a dead fish, or a hose end sprayer. Plants could care less where their nutrients come from, as long as they have a constant supply of all essential nutrients at all times. It is not going to kill your plants if you use a fertilizer with a less than favorable ratio because plants tend to take the nutrients they need from the soil (solution) and leave the rest, but it is important to understand that it is 'the rest' that constitutes a limiting factor; so avoiding unnecessarily high levels of any one nutrient or nutrients whenever possible is to your (plant's) benefit. Container Growing is Not Like Growing in Your Garden It is important to understand that growing in containers is markedly different than growing in gardens. On a scale of 1-10, with 1 being growing in the garden and 10 being hydroponics, gardening in containers is much closer to hydroponics than gardens, getting a rating of somewhere around 7 or 8. This is why many of the practices that serve us so well in our gardens do not work well in containers. One area that is often a sticking point is the idea we need to "feed the soil". While that is an admirable and productive approach to gardening in the earth, container soils are more about their structure than about any nutrients they might supply. If you concentrate on your soils structure and durability, and more specifically its ability to hold plenty of air, you will greatly increase both the probability of consistent success and the margin for grower error. Well-aerated soils are easier to grow in and offer much greater opportunity for plants that will grow as near to their potential as possible. Protecting the Root System As noted above, most growers draw no distinction between 'repotting' and 'potting up'. I have spe

Phosphorus and to some extent Potassium build up in your soil when you fertilize and will stay in the soil for years. Nitrogen washes out every year. Fertilizer has three numbers: the first(N)represents the percentage of Nitrogen in the product. The second number represents the percent of (P) Phosphorus and the third the percentage of (K) Potassium. A balanced fertilizer would have the the same number for each. Examples: 5-5-5 or 10-10-10 or 20-20-20. The article you read recommended a product like 5-10-10 or 10-20-20. I said if you have fertilized heavily in the past use something like a 20-5-5 instead. You are wasting the extra money that the 5-10-10 costs if 20-5-5 works. That is the cheap lawn fertilizer. If you have not fertilized that area very much and have not built up the levels of Phosphorus and Potassium, use the 5-10-10. Or, if you use any of the fertilizers mentioned above, your dahlias will grow fine. How about just give them a little bit of fertilizer in June and in July and whatever you use will work. A plant takes up what it needs and leaves the rest in the ground. A farmer who fertilizes many acres has to be concerned about over fertilizing as it wastes money and pollutes the environment. If you used the 5-10-10 or 1--20-20 for five years or so, you will have built up levels of Phosphorus that will cause a decline in plant growth. You will also have decreased the Ph of the soil and may have made it so acid that the plants are affected.

I replaced all but 1 of my Rose De Bernes and SuperSweet 100s today, also replaced a couple of Grandma Mary's and may do 2-3 more. They were looking as bad as the poor potbound tomatoes that had been left outside at the garden center, and hadn't really put on much root growth in 3 weeks. The Cosmonaut Volkov is looking pretty much the same, Brandywine, Rutgers, Cherokee Purple and Black Krim hanging in there. But the Mark Twain that I held back (only had 6) and planted on the 17th (just 4 days ago, but before another inch of rain) are starting to get that purple-black P deficient look the Cosmonaut have. I guess I really have to get a soil test ASAP but still wondering maybe liquid Neptune's Harvest this weekend for everything? May have to fertilize all summer? We did have 1 night in the 40's (night before last - or actually early yesterday) but days have been in the 70's (upper 70's this week except for Wed) and most nights have been at least 50. I haven't checked the soil temp but assume that it's OK? Neighbor on the ridge has nice looking plants (except for a little septoria), they had just as much rain and maybe colder nights so I'm thinking my problem is the soil (I didn't ask if she fertilizes but they have horses so maybe they manured the heck out of the garden area)? Oh, and they have landscape fabric down as mulch so maybe the soil IS a little warmer? Just don't see how given the soil results above anything but N could have changed that drastically? I want to get my peppers in this weekend, am amending heavily with the composted manure but don't know how much N is left in that now.