Fertilizers have reported NPK %s that are listed on the container, and identify the % Nitrogen, Phosphorous pentoxide (P2O5) , and Potassium oxide (K2O) in the product. When discussing fertilizer %s, separate the numbers representing the NPK %s with a dash (24-8-16, 12-12-12, etc). To determine the ACTUAL % of P and K in fertilizers, you multiply the amount of P2O5 reported by .43, and the amount of K2) reported by .83. Fertilizer RATIOS are the best reference point for determining what fertilizer is appropriate. If we consider only the NPK RATIO, 9-3-6, 12-4-8, 18-6-12, 24-8-16 would be equally appropriate (or inappropriate, if you prefer) because they are all 3:1:2 RATIOS (based on the amount of NPK REPORTED). Essentially they will yield approximately the same strength solution if mixed to the manufacturers specifications. Specifically, 24-8-16 diluted in twice the amount of water as the same measure of 12-4-8 yields the same concentration of elements and the same amount of each element per any given volume of solution. Note that when discussing fertilizer RATIOS and to avoid confusion, we should use a colon (3:1:2, 1:1:1) between the numbers to indicate you're discussing the fertilizers nutritional RATIO, rather than its NPK %s Usually, when we suggest or discuss ratios, we use them as a function of the REPORTED NPK %s, rather than the ACTUAL NPK %s - it's just much easier than having to do the .43 and .83 factoring and plugging the results into whatever it is you're factoring. Maca - I didn't realize I might have answered your questions here on 'Containers'. I looked all over the 'Citrus' forum yesterday or day before, and only stumbled on this thread today. I hope that between all the good folks that offered help, you got all the answers you needed. Best luck. Al

I think the message as it applies here is that we shouldn't be afraid of using synthetics in lawn care just because they contain chemicals. Just because something has an "ingredient" with a funny looking name that may be hard to pronounce doesn't mean that it's necessarily bad or wouldn't be produced naturally. For example, organic fertilizers can cause chemical run off just like synthetic fertilizers. Somewhat off topic, someone asked me what I was feeding my dog because her fur was so shiny and smooth. This person couldn't believe when I told her that I feed her bagged, dry dog food from the pet store. "All those chemicals and artificial ingredients! It's just not natural!" This person fed her dog a raw diet, and I guess she was assuming that plopping a round of filet mignon into the food bowl was somehow more natural than dog food. To me, that's just as unnatural. (Her dog was also suffering from conditions that may or may not have been related to diet, including terrible fur quality and weak bone issues...) Giving a dog a T-bone is as unnatural as dropping countless pounds of soy meal in a lawn to feed it., just as broadcasting Scotts Lawnfood is equally unnatural to feeding your dog dry kibble. There is nothing natural about a lawn (or farming or gardening, for that matter). There was an entire hoopla about this years ago, which is why the word "organic" is used where "natural" used to be. Lawns do not exist in nature without human intervention. Stop mowing, feeding and weeding the lawn for a single season and you will see my point. In nature, success would be a single seed out of thousands germinating and surviving log enough to produce more seed. In the man made lawn, success is typically 85-90% germination at a minimum, with the constant upkeep to ensure proper care for many years, and the prevention of any grass plants from producing seed. At any rate, I was going for a lighthearted post with that image and not something of serious analysis.

Excellent link Wayne, as stated previously, experimental design is CRUCIAL and your link goes into great detail illustrating the point. It is very unfortunate that with all the ability to disseminate information these days, so much mis-information is added, it confuses people and makes finding the accurate, true information that much harder to glean. Your link also shows how much effort is required to set up a good field experiment before one even proceeds to the field. There is a great deal of effort that goes into any field experiment (hopefully) before the design is finalized including extensive literature research. When reading anyone's research, it is critical to scrutinize, among other sections, the conclusions section to see if it holds water.

DC: I understand your point and appreciate your posting it. What I was and Dicot were aiming at was the near impossiblilty of making a fully knowledreable decision about usiing one practice vs the other. With the Urea/bloodmeal example it is probably possible to calculate how much energy is required to get a specific amount of N to my garden using those 2 very different sources. There are many energy inputs required, from shipping to manufacturing to storage, etc.. I suspect nobody knows the answer to that question but it would be very useful to know. The elevator nearest to me is 2 blocks away; but, which took more energy to produce and get to the elevator, the 10 lb. of N from the alfalfa or from the urea, beats me, I'd truely like to know. Oh, and about getting the pickup covered with cow manure by a farmers loader, been there, shoveled that. Paulns: My garden is divided into thirds with at least one third in cover crop at all times. I agree with you 100% about the being in a hurry and further, feel like I'd be getting greedy in a sense to not do that rotation. I'd like to have more space to have more fallow but can't. The alternative is to fallow more of what I have which would mean less food, quite a balance to maintain and live with. The fertilizers added perhaps have been about being in a hurry. When I staarted growing these gardens several years ago the ground wasn't in very good shape. I had to add fertilizers like urea to get good production but have been slowly reducing them to where I now need less than 1/2 to none of what was initially required for the same responses. If I wasn't in a hurry, I may have been able to be satisfied with crappy but slowly improving yields while the soil's ability to produce far better yields came about from the composting, covercrops and manure additions I've been doing since the garden's beginning. I must say that I really miss the days when one could purchase 1 gal of fish emulsion for a mere $12.00!