Just wondering how everyone's organic containers are doing? This was my first year having really delved into why containers are different from soil. For a few years after leaving a home with 3 acres and a large garden, and moving into a high rise condo, I was determined to grow containers as I did my garden. I kept failing. I had poor yields and plants that never were healthy. My soil turned to mush and was much too wet. So, this year, lots of reading. I WANT organic to work in containers. Even if it's harder for me to do. But, so far, I'm not having a lot of luck. This year I kept two sets of containers. Both were with a traditional peat, vermiculite, perlite mix, though I threw in about 5% compost. It wasn't enough to really offer any nutrition, I am afraid, so I won't do it again. Per the ferts, I've used all organic ferts in four of the containers. I used BioTone Starter Plus as a starter for the tomatoes and lettuce; this was amazing in terms of helping the roots systems get established. I've never seen such healthy root systems at transplant. In two tomato containers, I used Tomato Tone. My plants are doing better than they have in the past, but are still not as large or happy as they used to be when I planted in the ground. It could also be the strange weather we've had. While this fert is in the ground (these are covered EarthBoxes), I have been top feeding some Silica Blast and EarthJuice Catalyst to keep the soil alive with what it needs to turn the ferts into what the plant can use. In the Chinese greens container, I used a combo of Maxicrop fish and kelp ferts that got me close to a 3:1:2 ratio. I didn't have a non-OG container to compare it to. They grew OK and tasted fine. I hadn't grown them before so I don't know how to compare. They seemed to grow more slowly than I expected based on the packet dates. In the OG lettuce and chard container, I used PureBlend PRO Grow, a 3-2-4 fert. It was the closest I could get to a 3:1:2 ratio in OG. I also used the EJ Catalyst. The lettuce was excellent. It compared favorably to the lettuce grown with the chemical fert. But, the chard has not. It's stayed small and the edge leaves keep turning yellow. I do think that part of the problem is watering. I do not have a place for a rainbarrel and must use city water. It has HIGH chlorine. It kills all the good critters I have in the soil. Initially, when the water need was low, I could put water in pails and let it sit for a couple of days before using it to let the chlorine dissapate. As the need for water grew, I couldn't keep up and had to water with chlorinated water. By then, I was probably killing all the good stuff. On the other hand, the chard in the chem fert container is huge. No question, my chard prefers this. I am using Dyna-Gro Poliage Pro and Pro-tekt. One tomato is fertilized with the same as above. It has had an odd history. It was an extra and the only place I could put it is hanging. So, in a TopsyTurvy it went. About a month after transplant, I realized that the stem was breaking where the foam insert rubbed against it; it was literally held together by a few strands. I cut it off, rooted it in water, then replanted. So, it's about a month behind the other tomatoes. It looks great at this point, but I can't as yet compare yields or even size, since it is so far behind. The okra and beans are using the chem fert, also. Both are doing well, but no comparison to an OG version. Next year, if I try a comparison again, I'll try to grow same type of plants, even same varieties, in each, so that I can better compare. I honestly think that I'm screwed unless I can come up with a relatively easy solution for the chlorinated water. I do not have much space and the condo board will not allow me to tap into the water spouts to add a rain barrel. It was much too much work to fill gallon containers with water (you should have seen my bathroom...) and then try to get that water into the reservoirs of my SWCs. No question, non-OG is easier. I am making OG work, however, in most situations. If I didn't have the water issue, I'd be able to give it a better comparison, I think. Next year I will try some version of the 5:1:1 mix in my SWC. I haven't a clue what I'll do about the OG vs non-OG fert issue then. I am hoping someone has tackled this and found a way to make it work without too much added work.

The formula listed by neil16 is the recipe for Complete Organic Fertilizer from Steve Solomon's book titled Gardening When it Counts: Growing Food in Hard Times. His logic is to supply all of the nitrogen needs and to replace the nutrients that are removed as a result of harvesting the crops. I used the recipe last year with good results and soybean oil meal was my nitrogen source. My local farm supply sells 50# bags for about $16.00. The analysis is about 7-1-1 or 7-2-2 depending on the sources that I've found. This material gives me the biggest bang for my buck in terms of a nitrogen source. One drawback is that the nitrogen must be broken down by microbes for plant availability and that requires warm soil temperatures. In cold weather an animal source of nitrogen like blood meal or a fish product is necessary. Be aware that purchasing kelp, bone meal and rock phosphate in small quantities is quite expensive. I buy 50# bags from an organic supplier in my region for a much better price per pound. I would consider using a complete fertilizer in a newly constructed bed like the one described above since there may be some deficiencies in nutrition for the plants. In a rich, well nourished soil there might only be the need for added nitrogen. Alfalfa meal or pellets are reputed to really rev up the soil organisms although the nitrogen content is less by weight than the seed meals. You can figure out the nitrogen content in animal feed by dividing the crude protein analysis by 6 or multiplying the crude protein by 17%. Years ago I was quite surprised to hear an agronomy professor at Virginia Tech tell how quickly organic forms of nitrogen are made available to plants when they are incorporated into the soil. The animal products are available immediately. I side-dress heavy feeders by moving the mulch and applying my seed meal at the surface. I then re-cover the fertilizer and apply moisture when I can.

The jump point is usually May first, across the majority of the United States (including MA). While fertilization earlier than that using organics isn't going to cause a problem, there's no real reason to. The lawn doesn't need it if you winterized. If you didn't winterize, a weak fertilization when growth resumes might not be a bad idea. Half rate on Milorganite or around 7 to 8 pounds of soybean meal per thousand will do it fine. Then feed normally May 1-May 20th. But it also wouldn't be an error to just wait for May. The grass will manage. Time between fertilizations...variable. Post May, I won't feed until August again. The grass doesn't need summer fertilization. Although again, done organically, it's not a problem. It's just not strictly necessary. Fall is the season to hit it hard. I feed monthly August to October, which starts to release three weeks post feeding. After that, winterize when it's time and call it a year. Southern grasses will differ as their growth tendencies differ. Northern lawns are more cyclic. Feeding like that means you never run out of nitrogen and rarely, if ever, see signs that the lawn can use a feeding (if you do, it happens in late April when you're already thinking about it anyway).

dchall, I want to like you too :-) However, sometimes I think we get so focused on our viewpoints and way of doing things, we lose track of the bigger picture. I am not sure we are that far apart in our thinking, although because of my training, perhaps I tend to look at things in a very generalized approach. Let me see if I can explain myself more to your satisfaction. I dislike being pedantic but I feel the need to go back to square one - Chemistry 101 :-) Chemical elements are the building blocks of the universe - everything has a chemical basis, including corn. I'm sure you've heard of the term 'organic chemistry'. This is defined as the "discipline within chemistry which involves the scientific study of the structure, properties, composition, reactions, and preparation (by synthesis or by other means) of chemical compounds consisting primarily of carbon and hydrogen, which may contain any number of other elements, including nitrogen, oxygen, the halogens as well as phosphorus, silicon and sulfur." (from Wikipedia) Carbon and hydrogen define the primary chemical compounds of ALL living things. They define us as humans (yes, we have a complex chemical composition as well). And last I checked, corn is or once was a living thing :-) In response to my statement that ALL fertilizers are based on chemicals, you said this: Organic fertilizers are not chemical in nature, they are food. They are edible. They are good for us. If organic fertilizers are chemicals, please give us the chemical formula for corn. And please explain why we can't eat fertilizer ourselves and grow strong bodies and bones. See above :-) You are over-simplifying. In their raw state, organic fertilizers may be food. But they are also chemicals, naturally occurring complex chemical compounds. There most certainly is a chemical compound that defines corn, that makes it unique from any other grain or meal or food source. It's long and involved and I certainly don't have the sophistication or knowledge of organic chemistry to repeat or analyze it but it exists. And don't be silly with the question about why humans don't eat fertilizer - c'mon, that's below you :-) Obviously, the human metabolic system and how we receive and process necessary nutrients is vastly different from that of plants - about the only thing we have in common is that both plants and humans (and all other living things) do have specific nutrient requirements that must be satisfied for good health. And if all organic fertilizers are "food", are "edible" and are "good for us", then how come we don't snack on say.....bone meal or cottonseed meal, for example? Over-simplification again. Organic fertilizers do not feed the plants. They feed soil microbes and they eat food, not NPK. Now where in my statement did I say that organic fertilizers feed plants? NO fertilizer regardless of source "feeds" plants - plants manufacture their own "food" through the process of photosynthesis. The only thing that fertilizers do is present essential plant nutrients which the plants use to facilitate photosynthesis and which get converted during that process to the necessary proteins, starches and sugars - the actual plant "food". Whether these nutrients - the NPK and others - are made available through the conversion of material by the soil organisms - organic matter in the soil, compost or other applied OM, organic fertilizers - or are directly available via soluble synthetic fertilizers is irrelevant to the plant. Any plant will still require NPK (and various other micronutrients and trace elements) in order to complete its biological functions. And not all soil microbes eat "food" or at least what you are terming "food" in the manner of organic animal feeds/meals. Some species of fungi digest minerals and convert them into phosphorus, potassium, calcium, magnesium, iron and other trace elements. Other microbes eat their cousins or more often, their cousins' excrement. Others are able to live off atmospheric nitrogen, which is about as basic a chemical element as you can get. In response to my statement regarding the only difference between organic and synthetic fertilzers is the source of their chemical basis, you said: This is not an issue if we're already talking about organic fertilizers. But to believe this is an issue is to not understand the soil. Microbe food is food. Chemicals are not food. I understand the soil perfectly. And I also understand the intricate relationship between soil organisms and plants. And I understand plant biology and know exactly how plants access the soil for the chemical nutrients they need to accomplish photosynthesis, generate food and complete their life cycle. Chemicals may not be 'food' on a stand alone basis but they are the building blocks of food. To ignore this very basic fact of life is to indicate a serious lack of understanding of the physical world. You can concentrate on the soil and the soil microbes all you want but unless these are supplying, and in adequate concentrations, all the necessary plant chemical nutrients - there's that NPK again - you will have distressed, unhealthy plants. Commercially prepared blended organic fertilizers are not simply animal feed or meals. They are for the most part animal and plant by-products (which could include feeds or meals) but they also include naturally occurring minerals as well. You may get soybean or alfalfa meal in plain brown bag but the fancy bag of blended organic fertilizers could have cottonseed meal, fish bone meal, alfalfa meal, feather meal, soybean meal, mined potassium sulfate, kelp meal, seaweed extract and soft rock phosphate. Why using prepared, blended organic fertilizers should enormously complicate gardening is a bit of a mystery to me. If one understands plant nutrient requirements and the relevance of NPK ratios, why is it such a jump to translate a desired NPK of 6-24-24 to a formulation that is similar to 1-4-4? Or any similar low nitrogen, higher phosphorus and potassium blend? And because organic fertilizers deliver their nutrient content via the actions of the soil organisms, it is much harder to over-fertilize (compared to synthetics) as the presentation is over time and the plant will only absorb the nutrients it requires. So reproducing an exact NPK ratio is far less critial with organic fertilizers than it is with synthetics. What the soil lacks in nutrients will be directly evidenced by the plants, so the two are intrinsically entwined. One of the reasons soil tests are done are because plants display nutrient deficiencies and the tests will address what specifically is lacking. There are other factors involved, of course - I surmise the iron deficiency your lawn shows despite the iron concentrations in the soil tests is due to too high a soil pH making the iron unavailable. Which is why soil tests virtually always report pH as it has a huge bearing on how nutrients are accessed and utilized. So I stand by all my statements, but primarily the one that emphasizes that NPK analysis is just as important for organic fertilizers as it is for synthetic fertilizers. And one can omit the reference to fertilizers altogether. Understanding plant growth, biological processes and the role soil microbes play in these processes and how these all factor into the need for plant nutrients is sufficient to clearly demonstrate that NPK (and all the other necessary micronutrients and trace elements) is just as significant a factor in organic gardening as it is in traditional, synthetically based gardening. So yes, slacker, there IS a correlation between NPK and organic gardening - there is a correlation between NPK and gardening/farming/growing, period. The correlation is that plants require nutrients, primarily NPK, and in sufficient quantities that will vary during the course of their life cycle. Whether these nutrients are delivered via the soil and the soil microbes or pretty much instantly via soluble synthetic fertilizers is immaterial to the plants - nutrients are nutrients. That this is true is demonstrated by hydroponic growing - there are no soil organisms present because there is no soil, yet these plants will grow happily in any non-soil medium as long as they receive adequate nutrient input. Obviously in organic gardening there will be a much higher focus on the soil and the soil microbes as they are doing all the delivery work for nutrient presentation, but nutrient requirements will remain unchanged regardless of source. Before applying any fertilizer from any source, it is important to know the chemical composition of your soil and what is lacking, adequate or present in excessive concentrations. And the only way to know that is by a soil test. Once you armed with this piece of vital information you can research the nutrients needs of the crops you intend to grow and supply what is lacking, if anything, or adjust for other variables. But knowing and understanding NPK is essential for that process.