I have been silently following this very useful and fun thread. Thanks for doing the experiment, Raybo. Not everything has to be nailed down to the standards of a peer-reviewed journal to be useful.

penn, cozy, and all,

All very valid points you bring up if the objective is a clinical comparison between the Old Tomato-tone and the New. I simply don't have the space to set identical plants in 'Tainer #1, and Tainer #2. I have 2956 new OP varieties to try before I die, and "wasting" 2 'Tainers just to isolate the fertilizers 100% is just something I am not going to undertake.

The mechanical divider I use is cut to fit the sidewalls as best as I can. Regarding the Microbes swimming down through the wicking basket to the other side, remember, we are not dealing with sperm "swimmers" here - - moisture is constantly flowing UP from the wicking basket to the plant roots near the surface. So I really don't see a high degree of cross contamination. In any event, I have 4 plants Big Beef, Celebrity, Carmello, and Dona that I fed with mixing equal amounts of the Old and New Tomato-tones together - - and they are all doing great. So that will be my fertilizer plan for upcoming tomato crops going forward.

Raybo

that I fed with mixing equal amounts of the Old and New Tomato-tones together

That's interesting that you are using equal amounts of both even though the new formulation is much 'weaker' than the old.

I suppose it's necessary to do a fair comparison and cost/benefit analysis. Still, fertilizers diffuse though the mix and will enter the water reservoir so while you may start with 100% seperation, it's going to equalize over time no matter what you do unless you use seperate containers. While the water may travel up, the fertilizer diffuses in all directions. It does so until an equilibrium is achieved.

I understand your not wanting to isolate to individual containers, but it's difficult for me to draw any conclusions from the experiment without the isolation since I know the diffusion is unstoppable and can't not affect both plants. Early on I think the results are probably valid, but the longer the test goes on the more diffusion is going to come into play.

If you notice that the weaker formula ends up producing inferior results I could see that, but I suspect that differences after 4-6 weeks will be slight enough that they can be explained by genetic variability quite easily.

Still, you are doing a backyard experiment and posting results for free so I suppose criticism of your methods is a bit harsh. At the same time, there is no stopping the diffusion, unfortunately.

justaguy,

If there is total diffusion of the fertilizers between the two compartments of the EarthTainer, how does one explain the dramatic difference in yields shown in photo #2 in my original post? The Big Beef on the right with Tomato-tone far out-produced the Big Beef on the left with Fox Farms fertilizer. I would really like to understand how this happens - - really, I do!!

Raybo

I will liken it to placing a plastic divider in your hot tub, Pouring a gallon of clorox in one side and placing a chlorine tablet in the other. The elements are consistent but of different proportions.
Still, there is the common denominator of the "pool".
Add in a plant of unknown, comparable vitality and it is off to the races.
I ( again) am not trying to "debunk" anything ...nor have I ever claimed to be attempting to do so. Simply trying to glean info and grow a better 'mater via the experience of others.

cozy,

I don't agree that the EarthTainer eco-system is as "fluid" as a hot tub. In any event, I post my trials for anyone to evaluate their merits, as they see fit. As Sillius said, this is not a peer-review Masters Thesis that I am undergoing. Take the results for exactly what you have paid for them......

If the Tomato-tone folks want to fund a more clinical trial, I will be happy to consider their offer....

Raybo

Raybo, it is all wrong.
I truly hope that Tomato-Tone accepts your efforts and that you get commissioned both left and right.
I truly hope that you have massive gains from your efforts. Truly and most sincerely.

But there is no way that this, as is, is conclusive and absolute.
We have all seen, when fertilizing our own yards, the gaps from what we missed as well as that we over-lapped. In the end, it equalized because this stuff is soluble and diffuses.
I had hoped to learn something other than this :( Place a non-definitive barrier in a bucket of water, add drops of food coloring to one side and see what transpires.
According to your take, there is no need to side-dress corn ... the stuff will never hit the plants because it does not bypass the barrier of dry soil???
Honestly trying to learn but having a hard time of it. In the end, does it even matter? You have your take, I have mine. Both of us have apparently survived even though we disagree on this instance.

justaguy,

If there is total diffusion of the fertilizers between the two compartments of the EarthTainer, how does one explain the dramatic difference in yields shown in photo #2 in my original post? The Big Beef on the right with Tomato-tone far out-produced the Big Beef on the left with Fox Farms fertilizer. I would really like to understand how this happens - - really, I do!!

I don't know, but will offer some ideas.

One idea is that genetic variability explains it. I have grown 2 plants from seed and set them next to each other in a raised bed and had one significantly outperform the other for reasons I can't explain other than genetic variability.

However, the Fox Farm fertilizer is 100% organic and the old tomato tone got a generous amount of it's nutrient from synthetic sources which become water soluble fairly quickly once exposed to moisture. The time it took for the 2 to equalize may have made the difference in terms of early growth. Who knows, the huge difference may have been early growth from one shading the other. I really don't know for certain.

What I do know for certain is the way salts/nutrients behave in a solution. They equalize. This is, unfortunately, an inescapable fact. The water in the mix is effectively a solution and the water in the reservoir even more so (equalization occurs faster).

Even following Earth Box methods of placing all the nutrients in a strip on or near the potting mix surface the nutrients diffuse throughout the medium. If they didn't they would never get down to root level.

With the medium being the wick, meaning it sits in the water, there is no means of preventing those nutrients from entering the water, quickly reaching an equilibrium and then wicking upward with the water since the nutrients are now in soluble form.

I can't see the process of reaching an equilibrium taking more than a few weeks at most (for the faster processed organics and the synthetics). This could explain one plant growing faster (more N early on) and then possibly shading the other, but other than that I can't explain the huge difference in your first test.

I can only say that a physical divider in the potting mix can't and won't stop the equilibrium from occurring, it will only delay it until the nutrients become water soluble which they must in order for plants to use them.

If you look at the Fox Farms label and compare it to this year's Espoma Tomato tone you will notice the ingredients, right down to the bacteria, have become quite similar.

Perhaps a question for you to ask is why isn't the new formula resulting in an underperforming plant the way the Fox Farm's product did.

On a personal note I really appreciate your posts. I think the time you have taken to make and test and improve your homemade SWC design is super valuable to many people. I think you are a really valuable poster who not only posts stuff that helps people, but sticks around to answer questions. I would rank you in the top 10-20 GW posters currently active in terms of the value you provide to people at no cost.

I say this because I want you to take this 'criticism' in the spirit intended. I think the methodology in this experiment is too flawed to draw conclusions from, but in my eyes it does nothing to diminish your value to the community and your willingness to share what you know and learn is to be applauded. We need more like you here.

Cozy,

We appear to be on different "wavelengths", as I have never made any comment on side-dressing corn, as you imply. Don't know where you got that impression from.

In any event, I will post my trials for the folks on GW to evaluate, and I hope they do the same, as I have a lot to learn from others...

Peace-out,

Raybo

justaguy2

We could eliminate the "genetic variability: part of this experiment by using cuttings from the same donor plant. They would be clones and therefore genetically identical.

What would be said then if the side with the old brand still out performed the side with the new on a "consistent" basis (more than one or two tests). I realize that the fertilizer is water soluble and will eventually diffuse evenly, but would it not affect the plant closest to it first?

Anyhow this was an interesting experiment. I plan on trying this with some seedlings from cuttings in homemade swc and separate containers.

Overall, I do tend to think that the people at espoma do know what they are doing and there is reason for the new formulation.

I wasn't meaning that the microbes would go through the water resevoir, but right through the barrier in the soil. They aren't static and they multiply if conditions are right. I also wonder if the addition of them is more beneficial when fertilizing in the ground than in a container where the medium is more reliable to begin with.

I am not trying to say that you are obligated to waste an earthtainer to make it more accurate, of course you aren't! You took the time to do this and post it, which is a service to us. My only concern was that it might not give the new formulation a fair shake and make people write it off as 'watered down'.

This is so interesting!!!! Keep it up guys!!!

I usually use 2 cups of Tomato Tone in my Earthboxes. With the new organic formula should I use 3 cups?? What do you guys think?

I think there should be more than one pair as well. Or maybe other members could perform a similar experiment. I have 2 patio tomatoes in a raised bed next to each other. One has tomatoes, it was the first of my plants to get a tomatoe, and the other has blossom drop. It get's lots of blossoms, then they just fall off. In spite of all the blossom skeletons on it the plant continues to produce blossoms.

I don't understand how 2 plants could be so differant. I am suspecting I may have overfertized by it was in a bed with a lot of compost, not fully done. I was afraid it was still consuming nitrogen.

My bells in the same bed have dark foliage that is hard, the leaves are stiff. They had wrinkled leaves but they are starting to look normal now.

Anyway, sometimes something happens for an unknown reason, even plants side by side.

Tomatovator,

With my planned 50/50% mix of the Old and New Tomato-tone, I will apply 2.5 cups per 'Tainer next Season. If I were going to use *only* the New Tomato-tone, I would recommend 3 cups of the 3-4-6 formula.

margo,

Regarding your comment on "there should be more than one pair", I am actually using 4 pairs of plants for the experiment. I DO like your suggestion that other Members could perform a similar experiment. Mine is - - what it is - - flawed and all.....

Raybo

Any verdict so far on whether the new tomato tone is as good as the old one?

jessica,

My original plan was to provide a photo log of identical plants in identical growing mediums, to document plant vigor, stem thickness, plant color, etc. on a 2 week basis throughout the entire growing season.

But as I don't want to spend my personal time to "defend" my trials to anyone here with their own theories of Microbes penetrating through a 1/8 inch thick plastic wall, etc., I will simply post the end results of the tomatoes harvested in late August for all to evaluate at that time.

Raybo

Raybo, I appreciate the 2-week update pics. Please continue. Like you said.. you're not drawing the comparisons for an academic study.. so just have fun with it and most of us would still like to see the progression. You shouldn't have to defend what you are SHARING. Those that want to scientifically do a comparison.. by all means they can go do that themselves and share their results. I just like looking at pictures of tomato plants and thinking about how they got to look like what they do. My ETs don't have the physical barrier, but I've got some with old Garden-Tone + worm castings, some with new Tomato-Tone + worm castings and yet more with old Tomato-Tone without any castings and all different varieties of tomato plants. I don't have the space\resources to do a scientific study either, but I think sharing the results spurs thoughts\ideas. Maybe someone else will try worm castings in each planting hole and get the same result with the same types of fertilizers? I dunno.. just have fun with it! It's not the destination, but the journey along the way.

Microbes, being living organisms that multiply and migrate, could move from one compartment to the other by migrating OVER the barrier and along the underside of the plastic cover. But that's not much of an issue, IMO. Instead, I think the comparison of the two macro-nutrient/micro-nutrient formulae could be more productive and informative.

My previous comments regarding the use of limited numbers of unstable or inbred varieties in a side-by-side comparison was only in response to the impression given by the topic title "Myth Buster" and "New vs Old" etc. I assumed this was intended as a for real comparison. If it's just a casual documentary or promotional piece, then I can enjoy the pictures as well as anyone. Carry on.

We could eliminate the "genetic variability: part of this experiment by using cuttings from the same donor plant. They would be clones and therefore genetically identical.

What would be said then if the side with the old brand still out performed the side with the new on a "consistent" basis (more than one or two tests). I realize that the fertilizer is water soluble and will eventually diffuse evenly, but would it not affect the plant closest to it first?

Well, using clones from the same plant would eliminate a pretty significant variable. Generally speaking to draw reasonable conclusions from an experiment as many variables as possible need to be controlled for.

I don't think anyone, and certainly not I, expect any forum member to set up any experiment that would meet criteria for publication in a peer reviewed scientific journal though.

I think the comments to date are simply pointing out ways the result could be more meaningful, but nobody is under any obligation to do anything.

Perhaps those with an "attack the methodology" agenda could start their own thread and figure out how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. I know for me, I was thoroughly enjoying the updates and was able to differentiate between an anectdotal trial and peer reviewed scientific study. I don't mean to attack the attackers, because they obviously are quite bright and may have some valid points...if their comments were about a scientific study. However, that is not what this is or ever was purported to be.

Ray is obviously taking many precautions to obtain good anecdotal evidence that can be taken or left by the readers. If you are one that wants to publish a valid scientific study on this topic, why not see if you can find a corporate sponser and have at it. Otherwise, I for one would like to see the attacks on methodology stop. This is a hobby and a very dedicated hobbiest is kind enough to share his results, or was until he was chased off.

I think most of us would very much like to see the progression of this experiment Ray!

"Perhaps those with an attack the methodology agenda could start their own thread and figure out how many angels can dance on the head of a pin."

Jerry, this is a discussion forum. When a member initiates a topic, its content is subject to discussion. Sometime discussion includes constructive criticism. Therefore, the one initiating the topic should expect discussion of its content and criticism of its methodology if that methodology warrants criticism.

As long as the criticism remains civil, I see no need for you or others to paint it as an "attack" and I havent seen anything that constitutes an attack on Rays intentions or his enthusiasm for the hobby.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"I don't mean to attack the attackers, because they obviously are quite bright and may have some valid points...if their comments were about a scientific study. However, that is not what this is or ever was purported to be."

Ray chose to present this topic as if it were an experiment set up to prove or disprove the relative value of the new formula to the old formula. He didnt say anywhere in the original post that this was purely a pictorial essay. In fact the original post says quite clearly: "I'll post updates as the season progresses to see if the Espoma folks have really delivered a better product with the "new" Tomato-tone formulation."
Most of those who questioned the methodology following the original post did so with legitimate questions as to whether the experiment actually can prove the equality, superiority or inferiority of the new formula vs. the old formula and without "attacks" on a personal level only questions relative to the ability of the test to determine whether the "Espoma folks have really delivered a better product."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Ray is obviously taking many precautions to obtain good anecdotal evidence that can be taken or left by the readers. If you are one that wants to publish a valid scientific study on this topic, why not see if you can find a corporate sponser and have at it. Otherwise, I for one would like to see the attacks on methodology stop."

No one has said he or she wants to publish a valid scientific study. No one has suggested that Ray redo his experiment to be able to validate a scientific finding. No one has attacked anyone except maybe those who, in their defense of Ray have gone a bit overboard with their characterizations as "attack" of what in fact is just a friendly discussion.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the original post describing last years test, Ray said I used a semi-clinical environment with the same plants in the same EarthTainer, separated by a mechanical divider wall."

I think thats what spurred the following comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, and simply to reiterate my major point of, lets call it "concern" so you dont think of it as "attack"

Ray clearly said, AFTER saying lets "see if the Espoma folks have really delivered a better product with the new Tomato-tone formulation," ... "So, I now have pairs of: Purple Haze, Goose Creek, Ed's Millennium, and NARX, one side with old Tomato-tone and the other compartment of each 'Tainer with the new Tomato-tone "

Again, Ill I saying is you cannot determine the relative value of the two formulae using unstable varieties or possibly not even using one pair each of inbred varieties. Just my opinion. Not an attack. But your defense of your friend is admirable. Just a bit of a mischaracterization of intent.

Can I get an email update, if I promise not to pick apart your experiment?? :-) I'm trying to decide whether to buy fertilizer and which kind.

Hey Ray Long time no see! I just wanted to say that Ray has done many experimints of side a and b. He had some really good differences in sides a/b on peas. It was obvious from all the pics I have seen that Ray does great with his tests :-). Wish I had his mind! There are marked differences. While it is possible there is some crossover there is still a big difference in the two sides of all his different plants. I really appreciate all your effort. Keep it going Ray!!!
Kat

Ray, Just keep doing what you're doing and don't be bothered by the people that want to get too technical about the whole thing. I for one appreciate your efforts. Anyone that thinks your tests are inadequate is free to do his own.

Folks,

I NEVER claimed my experiment was a clinically verifiable trial. In fact, the second sentence in my original post clearly stated a SEMI-CLINICAL trial. As in SEMI-circle, it may be half way to a fully isolated and consistently repeatable trial. As I said, it is what it is - - warts and all.

What is somewhat comical is that the Actinovate supplement I use on ALL tomato plants is probably 1000 times more potent than the trace Microbes that are in the "New" Tomato-tone, so the hypothetical migration of the Tomato-tone Microbes through a 1/8 inch thick solid plastic wall is really a moot point.

Anyway, folks are free to point out the faults with the experiment, but as you saw in the second photo above, the containment of my fertilizer trials last year provided markedly different results when trialing different fertilizers, and you may draw your own conclusions as the season progresses and the tomato count starts to tally.

Raybo

and you may draw your own conclusions

True, folks are free to draw whatever conclusions they wish. The problem is there is no objective way for anyone to draw any conclusions from this experiment due to lack of controls.

Folks can say 'old is better', 'new is better', 'old and new are the same' etc. and it means nothing if the methodology doesn't support the conclusion.

Personally I think the whole idea of bacteria and fungi in containers is a bunch of nonsense snake oil, but some 'feel' differently. Fine.

The sticking point for me is you are using a shared reservoir between plants and there is no such thing as a nutrient plants can use that isn't water soluble therefore they are going to enter the reservoir and be wicked up without respect or regard for the physical divider in the potting mix.

I think you are a great poster, but as they say 'science is no respecter of persons'.

Folks can and will draw whatever conclusions they will from the trial, but anyone with an ounce of respect for science is going to have to put the results into the 'more research needed' category.

I am really sorry to be saying it, but it is what it is.

If you have 8 plants in 4 tainers, you could have done 2 tainers with the same fert for more isolation. Using clones would be even better.

Not saying you are in any way obligated to have done so, just saying it would make the results more reliable. Again, science is no respecter of persons so please don't take this personally.

Sure, I could do this experiment myself, but I just use water solubles in the reservoir and no solids at all in the mix so... don't really care enough to bother ;)

rnewste

I've read this thread with interest and wonder if it's too late for you to take at least two cuttings, same size, from the same plant now and put them into separate containers to test the two fertilizers? (Suggested in the thread.) That might alleviate some of the concerns people have about the fertilizers mixing. Four cuttings would be even better, of course, so you'd at least be able to average your measurements and double your observations. Even if they didn't produce fruit until later than you wanted, you'd have several milestones to compare.

Or maybe next year if this year's experiment leads you to believe there's a difference. (Do you have enough fertilizer to do it again?!!!)

Just a suggestion.

[Quote] The sticking point for me is you are using a shared reservoir between plants and there is no such thing as a nutrient plants can use that isn't water soluble therefore they are going to enter the reservoir and be wicked up without respect or regard for the physical divider in the potting mix [/Quote]

The water wicks up, not down, so I don't see how it can be pulling the fertilizer into the reservoir.

Raybo, your photos and experiments inspire me. I hope you continue with them.

The water wicks up, not down, so I don't see how it can be pulling the fertilizer into the reservoir.

Plants have no ability to consume nutrients until they are water soluble and then they take them up with the water via osmosis.

As the nutrients become water soluble they will move down and outward with the water and this includes into the reservoir which is simply potting mix that dips into the water reservoir. There it will mix and wick up with the water.

There is simply no way to escape this or to account for it other than with complete separation with separate containers.

The nutrients/salts will move within the potting mix to achieve an equilibrium. It's just the nature of the beast and can't be stopped with a shared water reservoir.

justaguy,

As the fertilizer strips sit on the surface of the EarthTainier and moisture is flowing up from the wicking basket to the plant roots on each side of the 'Tainer, I feel there is minimal cross-compartment exchange of nutrients between the two sections. Is there any , , of course there is, but it appears to me to be minor. But think about it, there is 1 gallon of water flowing UP out of the wicking basket on both sides of the wall feeding the plant roots every day!.

What hydrology would cause the Microbes to buck the flow and swim "upstream" trying to move counter-flow to get to the other side of the mechanical divider, diving down 12 inches, swimming through the wicking basket, and up 12 inches again to the other side. As I said previously, these guys are not sperm "swimmers". If the EarthTainer was a static pool of moist potting mix, then I could buy into your Dispersion concept - - but this is a different kind of constantly upward migrating moisture delivery system.

If it wasn't how do you explain the huge difference in Photo #2 in my original post, of production with Fox Farms on the left, and the "Old" Tomato-tone on the right with two identical hybrid Big Beef plants? No one here has objectively posed an explanation of how massive cross contamination as is postulated, resulted in the significant difference tomato production as shown in this photo - - ANYONE????

In any event, I have a new grandson just born last week, whom I would rather spend time with, vs. brain cycles spent "justifying" the experimental information I am offering, without commercial interest, for what it is worth.

I'll post results of my CornTainers and other crop progress on other GW threads, but will not post on this related thread again until I have meaningful empirical data of actual results later this season.

Over and Out!

Raybo

justaguy,

As the fertilizer strips sit on the surface of the EarthTainier and moisture is flowing up from the wicking basket to the plant roots on each side of the 'Tainer, I feel there is minimal cross-compartment exchange of nutrients between the two sections.

I understand. You, and many others 'feel' something. It's intuitive. What hydrology would cause the Microbes to buck the flow and swim "upstream" trying to move counter-flow to get to the other side of the mechanical divider, diving down 12 inches, swimming through the wicking basket, and up 12 inches again to the other side.

It has nothing to do with hydrology. This isn't about the movement of water and for the record it has nothing to do with the movement of living organisms in containers such as the microbes some seem so concerned with. If it wasn't how do you explain the huge difference in Photo #2 in my original post, of production with Fox Farms on the left, and the "Old" Tomato-tone on the right with two identical hybrid Big Beef plants?

I already gave a couple alternate hypothesis upthread. That's the problem. When an experiment lacks proper controls there will be all sorts of folks presenting alternate hypotheses. There is no way to refute these unless the experiment controls for them. That's the dilemma of the scientist. Trying to control for all relevant factors when it's often impossible.

The short answer to your question is as follows:

Q: How does the fertilizer flow downward when the water wicks upward?

A: Through dispersion.

Simple explanation:

Imagine a few drops of red food dye placed on top of the earth tainer. Now imagine a few days later looking at the color of the water in the reservoir. Do you suppose it would be pinkish or do you suppose the food dye would remain where it was placed since the water only moves upward?

More complicated answer: Fick's law. Diffusion. A substance tends to move from areas of high concentration to areas of low concentration until an equilibrium is achieved. The salts comprising the fertilizer will, and cannot be prevented from (by means of a partial divider), moving from areas of high concentration to areas of lower concentration.

This is why top dressed fertilizer moves into the root zone. This is why food dye introduced to water disperses until it's all evenly colored.

The salts (fertilizer) have no choice but to disperse until an equilibrium is achieved. That there is an open water reservoir for water soluble nutrients to disperse in simply makes the physics that much less complicated.

Again, I really value your contributions to this board. Your methodology in this particular case is too flawed to reach a meaningful conclusion. This does nothing to diminish your contributions in my eyes.

Raybo, they should pay you, or at least send you free stuff for putting up wonderful posts like this. Please keep us posted about the experiment.

The criticism and discussion only improves the thread. This experiment will in no way PROVE the superiority of one fertilizer over another, but it sure will suggest some conclusions and further experiments. Thanks to Ray that discussion is started. Consistently doing more than most!

Here are some links that might be helpful in understanding this discussion and in particular Raybo's question regarding why the two Big Beef plants exhibited differing results in a single example test:

Open Label Trial

Randomized Control

Construction of an ORIGINAL EarthTainer circa 2007

I can probably do the empirical study NEXT year with my ETs as I don't have the cash to buy parts to make any more EarthTainers this year (and I also have old and new Tomato-Tone). I am not using commercial potting mixes, but my own peat-perlite-vermiculite mix, so that rules out any of the 3-month fertilizer boost that Miracle Gro and Sta-Green are adding to their mixes. I wish I could do it this year as my Brandywine is already producing large enough suckers to use clones. Just don't have the resources to do the comparison with the suggested controls mentioned here (completely separate ETs). It would certainly be interesting.

OK Folks - With all the opinions and theories here by Experts, I'll ship you one pound of the "Old Tomato-tone and one pound of the "New" tomato-tone, if you develop a truly clinical growing vessel for a credible trial.

In the meantime, I have a new "Seedling" to tend to for the next few months, or so:

{{gwi:1310794}}

..and the best part of it all is that he doesn't require ANY Fertilizer!!

Raybo

In fact he makes his own fertilizer

irregardless of the container issue, it's gonna take more than 1# of fertilizer to have enough replications to do a "truly clinical" test.

Hi, I've been quietly following this thread, but now that Raybo's new seedling is in the picture, I have to say, he's so adorable, no tomato seedling can compare, no matter how much you fertilize them! Congratulations on the beautiful baby!

Just watching last Saturday's Saturday Night Live and the first skit with the crazy Target cashier showed a customer buying Espoma Plant-Tone and then the crazy Target lady commenting on it (called it a big bag of feces).. lol. How cool! Only a garden enthusiast would be so excited. lol

Not scientific, but for observational pondering..

Brandywine in the back left is growing with old Garden-Tone + worm castings, Brandywine in the back right is growing with new Tomato-Tone + worm castings. Both plants were same size when planted. The Early Girl hybrid in the front (short plant) looked sickly until the last couple days. The leaves were yellowing on it and the plant was looking gimpy. I don't think it liked the new Tomato-Tone initially.

A bit late on the response, and beating a dead horse, but I was only suggesting it might be biased towards the old formula for several reasons, not trying to insult anyone. I don't see why anyone would be up in arms defensive over it. Last I checked the meaning of discussion was not 'praise everything, question nothing'. Some people (as the thread has clearly shown) will look at side by side results and take it at face value, and immediately go into a tizzy about the company 'watering it down'. I could care less if people buy Espoma products or not, but I like to see things given a fair shake.

I never stated some 'crazy theory' that microbes 'swim like sperm' or that they would go 'through' the barrier. Noone said that. There is space in the barrier, it can be seen clearly. Even if it couldn't be seen, unless it was sealed a space would be there. I still think that the new formula would be more effective in ground anyway.

It is certainly interesting to see, and even more so when other people also have results to share. The reason for pointing out that it is not clinical isn't to criticize, it is meant to remind people not to take the results as gospel.

bencjedi, I saw that episode and I have been having a hard time finding Tomato Tone in my area so the other day I went to my local Target to see if they had any Nope.

The nerve of SNL to misrepresent Target's inventory! LOL

With regard to Megpi's post, I totally agree on all points made. And it's still obvious to me that microbes, being living organisms, can move over and across the barrier along the top of the growing medium rather than having to "swim" under the barrier.

With regard to Bencjedi's post, I grew about 100 Brandywine transplants for the Master Gardeners Plant Sale and kept a dozen or more at home to give to friends. Right now there are 10 of those Brandywine in 6" round pots filled with identical Baccto Professional Potting Mix with the pots stowed in a pile of bark fines like you might seed trees in nursery tubs with bark chips walled up around the tubs to keep the roots cool. All 10 plants have been treated identically since the time the seeds were planted ... same starter mix, same potting up mix, same fertilizer, same watering, same sunlight ... indentical. And there are marked differences between the plants at this time. Some are leafier, some are taller, some shorter, some have flowers, some don't have flowers, etc.

When I look at that particular SWC with the two Brandywines, I see the one closer to the fence is taller and has less dense foliage maybe due to its location with regard to sunlight. I see the sunlight shining between the fence slats. Which way is east or south? I also notice the one nearer the fence is flowering. And the Brandywine farther from the fence seems to have more "mitten fingered" leaves. Hey, who knows about the vagaries of open pollinated heirlooms???

pennyrile.. that's because the tomato plant in the foreground (next to the tallest tomato in the pic) is not a Brandywine, but it's a Brandyboy Hybrid. ;) That's why he looks a little different. Good eye!

It's just coincidental that the old Garden-Tone (which was also more potent) is producing the larger tomato plants over the new Tomato-Tone? Possibly note-worthy is that the Early Girl hybrid with the new Tomato-Tone Brandywine (in that Earthtainer) was looking very sickly (yellowing leaves, not reaching tall as everything else). It only started looking better this week. I have another Early Girl hybrid a few EarthTainers more south that isn't looking like that at all. (also growing in old formula Garden-Tone). My mix is sterilized peat moss + perlite + vermiculite in a 7:2:1 ratio. None are clones of course and the sun intensity varies, so yes, these factors must be kept in mind. You can't really see the second Early Girl hybrid in these pics to compare, but it is the 3rd EarthTainer from the foreground of the pic.. tomato plant closest to the fence.

Oh yeah the directionality of these photos is looking toward the south; the fence being west direction.

Just out of dumb curiosity, did Tomato Tone's Metal content change for the better? If memory serves me, TT was high in Metals like arsenic. So is the new version any better?

How would you look up the difference?

raybo,
i forgot to tell you that your grandson is so adorable!!!

Thanks Tammy,

I look EXACTLY like that - - after a bottle of DeLoach Chardonnay.....

Raybo

Ray, you were right about this thread being a spirited discussion. Especially the swimming microbe part. I think they are more wigglers than swimmers.:)Ami