All fertilizers have 'salts' and to put that admission to the test you should read articles that describe what 'salts' is all about.
It is not to be taken as though someone shook sodium into the fertilizer---salts is to be understood to be part of the chemical make-up of the material.
Salt is what appears on the insides and exterior walls of of the pot you have your houseplant in and is directly attributable to the water you give your plant. The water that comes out of your tap has some percentage of salts and its this, over time, that can build and cause plants distress. Supposedly that is the reason to use water that has been allowed to sit overnight...it loses some salts and what the community might have put into its water. Sometimes in water softening systems, in place of salt, potassium is used and can be used without concern on houseplants.

Plants have no problem with receiving what they crave from either liquid or granular....its all the same to them.
Granular fertilizer is usually said to have a coating on them to allow slower breakdown and ergo, lasts longer.
Liquid solubles, have a problem in its delivery. If the soil is dry, the liquid runs away from where you first apply it. Its this very reason why plants, when dry, should be watered first, then given fertilizer. Generally, liquid goes directly to
the roots and is taken up by the roots all in one gulp.
Granular, as stated, might last longer, giving the plant food as it can use it.
In that sense, granular is more appreciated.

If put on a percentage basis, lawn fertilizer is probably 90% granular/10% liquid soluble. Both can contain the same percentage of elemental make-up. Thus a granular 10/10/10, can be obtained in soluble liquid form the same as.
Its, as stated, all in how it is delivered to the plant.
The question whether fall fertilizer should be made up of less or more nitrogen is up to the gardener. Should you believe the manufacturer knows best, then simply purchase the product he makes available. If you believe "stories"...from those who give you "well, I heard *****.."....then that's up to you.
High nitrogen, low nitrogen....
I believe though in the matter of 'nitrogen, you should make yourself aware of just what nitrogen does for the plant. It is no problem finding fertilizers with no nitrogen on up to nothing but nitrogen....and the same for the other elements, phosphurus and potash.
Superphosphate and triple superphosphate have element phosphurus rated at 0/20/0....and 0/46/0....
Such fertilizer is regularly given to encourage root and flower production. Bone meal is another source for this same element.
Blood meal, has a high degree of nitrogen....commonly used for garden plants. Should we avoid its use.
Again, being aware of what nitrogen does for plants is your best education on the matter.

I'll take whack at some stuff but it's a bit much for one post and I'm a little sleepy.

gave me some Water Soluble fertilizer in ziplock bags
No need to capitalize, water soluble is a description, not a brand name.
My friend said this doesn't have Salts
Fertilizers are salts.
Anyone have experience with these versus granular.
From what I gather from your post, it sounds like what your friend gave you is a liquid feed grade fertilizer (I think). Most, but not all, granular fertilizers are water soluble, i.e. ammonium sulfate (21-0-0), potassium nitrate (13-0-44), etc. Some granular fertilizers contain nutrients that are not water soluble such as most organic fertilizers like blood meal or bone meal, which require microbial action to break down. Not all synthetics are water soluble either though. i.e. "Nitroform 38-0-0,27 WIN" with the 'WIN' standing for water insoluble nitrogen.
But I would like to try the water soluble stuff that has N in it
Sure, why not?
I would be willing to invest in a tow behind sprayer, as long as I don't need to apply this 10 more often.
You'll have to apply it more often. Usually if someone is using a liquid feed grade fertilizer, they're doing it through the irrigation.
I was also told this is used by the roots faster
Yes. That's why you need smaller amounts and more frequently. Again, it makes the most sense to do this through the irrigation.
and nothing goes to waste.
That depends on application rate, application frequency, plant uptake, temperature, irrigation, etc....
I am hoping Kissmr may see this and chime in.
Kimmsr

That's about all I had in me this evening.

Supposedly that is the reason to use water that has been allowed to sit overnight...it loses some salts and what the community might have put into its water. Sometimes in water softening systems, in place of salt, potassium is used and can be used without concern on houseplants.

If your water sits over night, salts won't dissipate. However, water could evaporate and the salts would be more more concentrated, in which case the water left behind will be higher in salinity....so I guess that's somethin'.

Potassium is quite a contributor to salinity. That's why a nice quality greenwaste compost will often have a salinity of 6.0 dS/m or greater with the vast majority of that value coming from soluble potassium. In comparison, you'll start to refer to salinity as elevated in soil somewhere between 2 and 4 dS/m, depending on who you ask and what time of the day it is.

Okay, I guess I had a smidge more in me.

I suspect that if you ask the question enough places, you'll find somebody who'll tell you what you want to hear, but they'll be wrong.

Although commonly thought of a common table salt, Sodium Chloride, the term salt means just about everything, chemically, so when someone says those "fertilizers" cntain salts they are correct, but the use of that term as a pejorative indicates someone unfamiliar with the proper use of "salt'.
Water soluble fertilizers contribute nothing worthwhile to the soil and unless the soil they are applied to contains adequate amounts of organic matter the nutrients tend to flow out of the soil with the water they are applied with. There are some botanists, horticulturist, and soil scientists that think the research about the "benefits" of water soluble fertilizers is totally flawed, but since the industry involved in manufacturing and selling these things is so large it is difficult to hear them.

BP,
Actually I was hoping to hear from someone that has used both to see if they have input and wanted to read both sides. Something about granular (which is getting expensive)that most seem to use, makes me wonder if they're greasing the consumer?? Supply and demand and all.

I am always skeptical at first on trying something new (mix only a couple of pounds to 25 gallons of wonder stuff for my entire lawn), especially something most don't use. If I like it I can buy more cheap, like $10-$20 to do my lawn verses $100, is inviting. But I would need to invest in a Sprayer, that will be $400.
Luckily my first application was free to try. Though I had to use a 1 gallon sprayer that took all day.

I am trying to rely on less and less chemicals for my Family and my wallet sake. If this would be a low cost but effective addition to compost on the lawn, then great, if its no better then its not worth the trouble.
I do wonder why everyone is so Pro granular? I also wonder about leaving something long term in soil, build up etc... and thats why I am trying to hear from both sides. Maybe I will check in the organics forum next. Its like asking a normal farmer versus organic about Roundup.

By and large, water soluble ferts tend to be more expensive to use than granular....that maybe much of the preference you imagine. And harder to apply according to specific nutrient requirements (i.e., pounds of nitrogen per xx square feet).

But as stated above, both granular and water soluble ferts contain salts. That's how plants access the nutrients - via soluble salts. Even organic ferts, which are typically NOT water soluble, are converted to soluble salts by the soil organisms for proper plant uptake.

As to leaving "something" long term in the soil, most non-organic fertilizers are quite fast acting, regardless of being granular or water soluble, unless treated to be slow release. You can get "build-up" of some nutrients if overapplied (ditto the salts) but typically these types of ferts present plant nutrients in fast-acting, ready to use forms.

Truly, the plants do not care the source of the nutrients, whether they are delivered by water soluble ferts, granular ferts or organic ferts. Many gardeners prefer organically sourced ferts as these tend to encourage soil life and health as well as provide necessary plant nutrients. But the plants will absorb the nutrients regardless of source.

Sorry for misunderstanding your intent.

As TW pointed out on the lawn forum, those products actually end up costing a lot more than the granular fertilizers, even if you don't take into account the additional equipment.

If you're trying to cut back on the chemicals on the lawn, I don't think these types of products will help.

Instead, start using things like coffee grounds and grains.

Every time you pass a Starbucks, stop in and ask if they have grounds for the garden. Spread them on the lawn when you get home. Coffee grounds are only about 1-3% N, so it takes a lot to be a real fertilizer, but if you have a small enough lawn and enough coffee grounds, that can be your sole fertilizer.

Use cracked corn (corn meal will work, but cracked is less expensive). Soybean meal is higher in protein (and thus higher in nitrogen). You can get them at feed stores.

Clarification
After asking more about what was in my instant fertilizers I tried- want to use, they are organic, substitutes to normal fertilizers. For the Nitrogen, I will try in the spring, contains a processed of some way Urea, which for my lawn is fine. After he explained why plants can use things that are more natural and don't have to expend extra energy to transform or break down them down like the store bought stuff, the organic can have the same effect in the end, but is less costly. For me if they have the same results (with addition of the compost I am adding) with only needing to invest in a large sprayer, it would be worth it.

berryman, it might be helpful for you to do some readings on fertilizers and how they work. I think you are being fed a line of 'stuff' by your friend that is misleading you.

First, I'd have to question that your "instant" fert with the 0-25-20 formulation is organic. That is a very high nutrient concentration for an organic product - typically all 3 numbers of the NPK of an organic fert added together do not exceed 20.

Second, by definition organic fertilizers tend NOT to be water soluble nor fast acting. Most 'water soluble' organic ferts are not soluble at all but merely nutrients held in a liquid suspension. They require the same activities of the soil organisms to break them down into the soluble ions that can be accessed by the plant roots. And even those that do claim to be 'soluble' tend to be only partially soluble.

And your friend has the process a little backwards - synthetic chemical ferts are immediately available to plants. The plants do not need to "expend extra energy to transform or break down them down" - the nutrients, unless treated for slow release, are already present in a form the plants can access immediately. Therein lies the risk with over-fertilizing with chemical fertilizers and the risk of contributing to pollution by the run-off or leaching of the excess nutrients into groundwater.

OTOH, organic fertilizers tend by nature to be slow release. They require the intervention of soil organisms to break them down into components that can be accessed by the plant roots (here's where the conundrum of 'soluble' organic ferts comes into play). And their nutrient loads tend to be lower. Therefore, it is far more difficult - but not impossible - to overapply and there is minimal risk of leaching. And because the nutrient concentration tends to be low, one tends to need more organic ferts to achieve the same application rates as the synthetics so they initially are MORE expensive than synthetics, not less. As the garden or turf becomes weaned away from synthetics, you will eventually use less of the organics as they are present longer and tend to be used more efficiently, but the initial cost IS higher.

Suggesting that water solubles offer nothing in the way of food to the plant is suggesting also that all us houseplant owners are wasting our efforts and money on trying to take better care of them.

It matters not how food is delivered to the roots...granular or water soluble...its food, that's all they care about. If there were anything, even marginally, different about their make-up, then the manufacturers would put their efforts into making one....not both.
Liquids have their specific ways to contribute...and granulars have their days too.

And my houseplants are proof positive that I'm aware of how they like to dine on what I give them.

I don't believe anyone is supporting the contention that water solubles offer "nothing in the way of food to the plants". Of course they supply nutrients and in some cases faster and more efficiently than granular ferts. But as few water solubles tend to be organically sourced, most offer nothing in the way of encouraging soil life and health, equally vital parts of the equation for inground plants.

Containerized plants and houseplants are a different can of worms altogether. For one thing, soil life and health are not big players in a containerized environment and because of that, water soluble/synthetic fertilizers are really the best way to go.

I also get a little agitated with references that relate fertilizers to plant food.....they are NOT. Plants do not "dine" on fertilizers - they manufacture their own food (sugars, starches and proteins, just like us) through the process of photosynthesis. All fertilizers do is provide the supplemental nutrients that may be lacking in the soil or potting media that the plants need to accomplish that process.

Well my neighbor across the street and I are going to be a test case. Our lots are identical, in size, soil and climate. They are mirror of each other except for how we treat our lawn.
He uses (most Years)5-6 Synthetic granular treatments. Last year he missed 2 and his grass by fall looked like mine. I have been only adding Synthetic granular in the spring and fall. We both were buying from the feed store. I realize its not complete apples to apples, but if I go from using no Synthetic only compost and organic, and he uses all Synthetic, over a say a three year period, I wonder what each will look like?

I beg you Berryman, before going the 'organic' way, do read the many articles describing what fertilizer is, and how it acts on plant life.
Organics are in no way on par with inorganic fertilizers and without knowing their make-up of the vital elements, it is a sure way to deny proper health to your turf.
If you wish to use your lawn as a testing ground--opposite a neighbor, well, its your property, you can do as you please, but at season's end don't blame what you put on your lawn...you are the one at the controls and ...
there's a mountain in your way....pull up, pull up for heaven's sake.....
ah, sorry, crashed and burned did we. Well, you were told...
All kidding aside, do read the many articles on the different fertilizers and why they are what they are.

Gee goren, I wonder how people survived and grew food crops before synthetic fertilizers became readily available in the late 1950's? There is a lot of information out there that says Justin Von Leibig misinterpreted what he saw.

Gee - how did people get around in the 1800s before automobiles became readily available ...... We KNOW that travel by horse and shank's mare are assuredly better for the individual and the environment, right?

I'd be interested in hearing/seeing evidence that refutes Liebig's Law of the Minimum.

Too many people are too willing to sally forth with ideology and politics at the the point instead of reason, painting with a very broad brush and levying blame on synthetic fertilizers that rightly goes to other poor management practices. Synthetic fertilizers are a simply a useful tool, that used responsibly in garden settings are often able to greatly enhance the results being sought by the grower.

Al

Organics are in no way on par with inorganic fertilizers

That's a pretty brash statement and warrants some further clarification to support. How exactly are they not on par? Because organic ferts tend to have lower nutrient loads? It is estimated that synthetic granulated ferts have an efficiency rating of 5-20%, meaning only a fraction of the delivered nutrients are accessed by the plants, the rest is lost to mineralization and leaching. Due to their nature, organic fertilizers tend to be nearly 100% efficient, with pretty much all of the available nutrients accessible by the plants over time.

Organic ferts can also contribute significantly to soil health by stimulating and encouraging populations of beneficial microorganisms. As a result, they add to soil structure and their use can lead to looser, better draining soils as well as promoting root development and drought tolerance. Synthetic ferts add nothing to the soil and if used repeatedly can diminish soil health and contribute to compaction. And consider the source - synthetic fertilizers are primarily byproducts of the petrochemical industry, so their carbon footprint is intrinsically higher than that of recycled plant and animal products.

The bottom line is the plants DO NOT care where the nutrients come from - a petrochemical plant on the east coast or the reprocessing of the leftovers from the midwest meat processing plant. Both sources will supply the required nutrients in the appropriate form. As will your own compost pile. The choice of using organically-derived or synthetic fertilizers is a very personal one and one that is often based as much on philosophical/emotional grounds as on economy, efficiency or sustainability. Both work and work well, depending on application and specific growing conditions, so the choice is yours.

When my friend laughed at what I was paying, to make my grass look nice and the fact that so many seem to be the Defenders of something Synthetic, makes me want to try go the opposite direction. I understand my grass may not be the Country club lawn that some strive for, but then I dont have a sprinkler system or a full time grounds keeper either. At what price do I want pay for this manicured lawn and Why? Not one person at my last house when i had that lawn, did anyone present me with any awards nor did any Commercial Fert. Co. give me anything to use their product.

One other thing to wonder about, is the other half of my neighbor hood is all grass around their houses (my half was timber and the yards are only partial grass- partial wild), ...of the eight homes, 5 dogs (that play in that grass) have died since that part of the neighbor hood was developed(three years).

Must have been the dogs died from excessive frolicking in the deep, lush chemical induced turf. Poor things, their hearts couldn't take it. Maybe it was the water soluble fert. in their drinking bowls. Maybe I'll just go to bed.

All I do for the lawn is top-dress with compost and spread lime every couple of years or so. The town composting site has an unlimited free supply of compost, so it doesn't cost me anything but time and labor (and a little gas). I always mulch the grass-clippings and overseed now and then. I also welcome clover which is soft, green, and fixes nitrogen which benefits the grass. This approach does not create an instant result, but over the years the scraggly poor excuse of a lawn I inherited from the previous owner has gotten thicker and healthier, has improved drought resistance, and now resembles something of decent lawn (still has weeds though).

IMO the American obsession with turf grass is definitely not worth the intensive use of precious natural resources - water and fossil fuels - that seem to be required to maintain a perfect weed-free green carpet that is obsessively mowed to within an inch of its life. Let alone the application of potentially harmful pesticides that could harm wildlife or pets.

"IMO the American obsession with turf grass..."

Canadian too and I don't get it as well. Growing food, ya sure, but grass?? Perplexing to say the least.

Lloyd

I like to use my measly lawn for 2 things aside from avoiding tracking dirt into the house, environmental cooling and a local source of clippings for mulching and composting. to that end, I apply fert. water to it sparingly and nothing else. Really, the lawn is just part of the veggie and fruit gardens. Most of my turf is Buffalo grass and doesn't need much help anyway.

Oops, guess I was a little off topic again, s'cuse me.