well... lots of folks here use their own urine, diluted.

alfalfa meal, corn meal- very common. For many of these- you'll need compost or ACT to make the nutrients more available.

It might help to know what plants you are using e.g. flowers might be different from vegetables.

And, what is your time window? That is, how quickly must the nutrient be avaible?

We anticipate using tomato plants as they derive the nutrients primarily through the soil( I am hoping that was not a mis-statement). We are also needing results buy mid-May...we may not have fruit by then, but we can look at growth curves, times, etc., so availability is something that we will look at. Is it worth more to pay for a quickly available product, or do we have to wait for decompostion. We know availability on the fish, blood and egg. We don't know the beans. We are anticipating slow, although these beans contain a lot of sucrose and carbs.

I fertilize my African violets with milk diluted at 1 teaspoon per cup of water.

dchall, what are the benefits of using milk? Don't the solids and fats create problems in the soil medium?

Rather than potatoes, consider using a weedy little brassica known as Fastplant. It's bred for a 40 day seed to seed time, for educational use.

http://www.fastplants.org/

The line between soil amendments and fertilizers is very fuzzy in the organic world. Many things are both. I use some crab shell, which is 10% nitrogen and 23% calcium. It does good things to the soil, in addition to being a fertilizer.

Dan

You wrote: "... 12-0-0 for our traditional..."

Really? Why?

In order to be a true comparison, the various fertilizers should have approximately the same ratio of N-P-K.

So, even your choice of "organic" products is off. They vary also. Not possible to compare 5-2-2 with 2-0-2 with 7-1-0.

You're missing several basic items. First, just what is it you are going to compare? Second, what will you use for your "control" portion of the experiment?

For controls we are using: 1) no fertilizer as our negative and 2)inorganic 10-10-10 as our positive. I guess we are trying to compare general effectiveness by measuring plant growth, chlorophyll levels, fruit yield, and quality. Additionally, we are trying to test unknowns to see if they are a viable organic alternative. We intend to compare them by applying equal amounts of nitrogne (x lbs /acre of actual N), so based on weight, and neglecting ambient moisture, we will measure different weights of each fertilizer, but will be applying the same dose. Coming from a non-organic background, all I see when I go into Wallyworld is fish, blood, and maybe one random other organic choice. I am very sure soil varies, and what is sold in Texas may be different than what is sold in Oregon, so that is why I had picked those to be traditional, and the reason for my original post. We are thinking maybe we will discover something that will help the average non-organic Joe like me find something that they might consider using that might sway them to the organic choices.

Sincerely,
A child from parents of the peace, love, dope generation

Thanks for explaining those details.

But you still have design problems with your experiment. You can't compare compare 5-2-2 with 2-0-2 with 7-1-0 because they aren't comparable materials. One product has NPK, one lacks P, and the other lacks K.

Expand your shopping beyond Wallyworld. To locate comparable fertilizers to test -- both synthetic and organic -- visit one or more large, independent retail garden centers.

There are blended, balanced (i.e. 10-10-10), organic fertilizers out there. As Jean said, get out of Mal*Wart, and compare actual fertility levels on an even footing. If you can't get a blended organic fertilizer, then try coming up with non-organics with the same fertility input as the organics.

Be aware that many studies of organic fertility take years. Organics are generally slow release, and soil conditioning is an integral part of how many organic inputs effect the system. It's entirely possible that you could design a short term study where the chemical salt fertilizers outperform the organics. It looks like you may do this under your current plan, by running a short study, excluding soil conditioning effects, and not comparing chemical NPK composition on an even footing.

Dan

I promise that I am listening. The mesquite beans and the egg powder have the missing nutrients, just not high enough to make one percent....but maybe I should say we will test the non-blended organics. Of those, (I am aware of many), the big ones seem to be from a west Texas purchasers standpoint, blood, bone, fish, possibly rabbit...I am with ya'll, just the array of blended ferts is huge. Dad can't afford the experiment. I really do appreciate the comments. Ed

dchall, what are the benefits of using milk? Don't the solids and fats create problems in the soil medium?

Milk has microbe food. It has protein, vitamins, minerals, enzymes, and other bacteria. The solids and fats are absolutely essential to the nutrition of the soil microbes.

BAT GUANO theres two kinds: fruit eating and insect eating
and seabird guano..these are natures miracle grow..if they
where more abundant they would replace all chemical fertilizers....wich where invented to replace the latter.