Tapla and Justaguy, I wanted to point out your dislike of organics in containers was reaffirmed by Ray's experiment. I know the problems associated with using organics in containers and that researchers have tried to obtain results equal to conventional methods with much tweaking of the organic systems and have had some success. But Ray's experiments last year certainly back up your contentions in other threads that using organics in containers would give disappointing results. At least it certainly did using Fox Farm vs the old formula of Tomato Tone. The old T.T. formula was a mix of synthetics and organics and look at the results in Ray's picture--the tomato with lots of fruits on the right (TT) VS the pitiful organic one (Foxfarm) next to it that you can barely make out. Even Ray's miracle gro soil mix WITH fertilizer did not help Fox Farm. Now having said this I have had good results growing certain vegetables organically in containers. Perhaps they would been bigger with synthetics but I was happy with the results. I certainly would not be happy with the results that Ray got with Fox Farm and was surprised the difference was that dramatic. By the way I use both synthetic and organics fertilizers but I am interested in improving organic results particular when told it just can't be done. Any chance that some of the non-plant ingredients are soil-type microbes that would help the organic fertilizer breakdown and be utilized in containers? Ray, I also noted the change in the formulas on my old bags of TT and the new. I was disappointed that they did this as I liked the higher potassium and the synthetic components ameliorate some of the organic drawbacks. I already had Plant-tone if I wanted to go purely organic. As far as your new experiment, it will be interesting to see how the new TT with all the biological microbes stacks up to the old. Also the ferts, in the Miracle Gro are long gone now and won't impact the experiment.

Following up on some greenhouse questions- Westgirl - I did design it myself, I wouldn't call it easy but, you can certainly do it yourself. One recommendation - if you do build your own start in spring, this way you have a lot of time to work out the kinks. My watering setup is a simple timed based automatic irrigation system, normally off until the summer, When they need watering every other day. In the winter I just water by hand as needed. Mike - The frame is 2'' PVC. its strong and flexes a little, its available and not that expensive if you mess up a cut. The plastic is called greenhouse film, 6mil bought from a greenhouse supply store online. Heating is electric with a backup gas heater, just in case. Mksmith - Dimentions are roughly 30ft long 12ft deep and about 9ft at the tallest spot in the center, its a decent size. Heating is a challenge sometimes. Like I mentioned above, Heating is electric with a backup gas heater, just in case. The good thing as its fairly well insulated but, last night when it dropped to 16F it struggled to keep it above 40F, but it did :)

Well Mrclint you have had excellent results, so you may be right. I didn't know dose was so low with Dr Earth, that makes it affordable. I will try it next year. I'm all set for this year. I have had great luck with ammonium sulfate and have no plans to stop using it though. I'm super happy with results. I like to use both a slow acting feed, and a quick boost. Steve I will try it. Yes I like to use Neptune's Harvest products also. It does become expensive though. When I need a quick boost for other plants it works well. Probably my favorite fertilizer though is soluble Dyna-Gro. It works so well, and ensures all trace minerals in forms easily taken up. Too me it is the very best, but to each his own. I only really use it on seedlings. Once bigger I switch to organic products. I also really like dynamite slow release. It lasts 9 months, they make an organic form too, but never tried it. These products make it a lot more affordable for me as I have so many edibles. Like I said earlier I thought to switching to grains, but making sure plants have everything they need products like Dyna-Gro come in handy. I thought of switching to all organics, and was heading that way, I'm just not impressed so far with results when I have tried it. So now I decided not to go that way. I know it can work, but I know products like Dyna-Gro not only feed but have a perfectly balanced NPK ratio, and that seems to really increase productivity. I have not been able to achieve this so far with organics, although I'm not totally given up on them just yet. I will try a few more techniques to see if I can get the production i expect. The key to using solubles is to use low amounts. People tend to way overdo it. Small amounts are very effective. Sometimes too I need to change direction of a plant, like to boost flowering like yesterday, or increase vegetative growth, or slow it down. I just cannot do that with organics. Yet it's super easy with soluble products or lack of them to slow growth. I would miss having that much control. I can speed ripening of tomatoes before winter, this kind of stuff is essential, so I doubt I will totally stop using solubles. I can force plants into dormancy by cutting them off. At the end of the season I switch back to solubles so I have this control.

From the perspective of getting nutrients from outside the plant, inside the plant, foliar feeding is generally extremely inefficient. In those few plants that can/will benefit from foliar feeding, fertilizers in ionic form are far more effective than various emulsions/suspensions at providing supplemental nutrition, but roots are still, by far, the more efficient and reliable pathway for nutrients to enter the plant. Foliar feeding is best suited for use as an intense agri-crop management tool used to compensate for specific soil deficiencies at specific periods of growth. If your plants actually NEED foliar feeding - by default, there is something wrong with your basic nutritional supplementation program or your soil, and your efforts would be better spent concentrating on managing those issues. Foliar feeding is usually only used effectively to supply a few elements in ionic form (mainly N,Fe,Cu,Mn,Z), and only when plants that are able to provide a foliar pathway into the plant are growing so rapidly the nutrient stream cannot supply certain nutrients fast enough. Remember - over-supplying a nutrient the plant doesn't need can be as bad as or worse than a deficiency. If you have a genuine deficiency, it's better by far to address it via the most efficient pathway - the root system. You can't make plants grow at beyond their genetic limitations, and supplying more of this or that than plants need is counter-productive. Trying to ensure the 12 elements you have control over are available in the soil at a favorable concentration and in the right ratio is about the best you can do. I think one area where the hobby grower CAN effectively use foliar feeding is as a 'tell'. That is to say, after your lament and input about a particular symptom, I might suggest a foliar application of some chemical like Epsom salts or ferrous sulfate on part of the plant if I suspected a deficiency of Mg or Fe, for example. Applied one at a time and given a couple of days to work, you might be able to isolate one of several possible deficiencies. Of course, a soil test will usually provide the clues, but absent that, or when growing in containers foliar applications can sometimes be used effectively to tell you what you should be doing in terms of soil nutrition management. The ideal ratio of N:P(hosphorous) for the average plant is about 6:1, and about 5:3 for N:K (potassium). 3:1:2 ratio fertilizers like FP 9-3-6 supply N:P at a ratio of 7:1 and N:K at a ratio of 5:2.8 ...... so just a little light on both P and K, relative to N. 25-5-15 fertilizer supplies a N:P ratio of 10:1 and a N:K ratio of 5:2.5 ..... so quite low in P (or quite high in N depending on how one looks at it) and a little light on the K compared to N. The light K content of that fertilizer WOULD play right into the hands of those wanting so supply silicon using Pro-TeKt 0-0-3, but the amount of N that needs to be supplied to ensure the plant gets enough P is something of an issue, especially if plants are indoors for part of the year (low light), AND if the source of N in the 25-5-15 is all or part urea, which tends to promote coarse growth (large leaves and long internodes). I did a very quick search on the 25-5-15 and didn't find any info listing what nutrients were in the fertilizer other than the primary macros or from where the N came, so that's still a question. I did note that what I was able to find indicated it had secondary macros and at least some of the micros, if not all. Based on what I'm seeing, I can't find a good reason to choose the 25-5-15 over the 9-3-6; and, if there was, I'd switch in a heartbeat and the 25-5-15 would be my new 'go to' fertilizer. FWIW - Foliar applications of nutrients are most effective when applied on overcast DAYS when stomata are open, not during the dark cycle when they are closed. I'm not saying that stomata are the only foliar pathway, but when they are open nutrient entry is considerably enhanced - especially in plants like citrus that benefit from cuticular waxes that limit water loss from foliage, but also inhibit absorption of aqueous nutrient solutions to a significant degree. Al