Ox - I was doing some research, using the search function, when I came upon this thread and realized as I scrolled to the end that I never answered your question. Just saying that you use MG isn't enough information. MG manufactures several soluble ratios. 20-20-20, 24-8-16, 12-4-8, 10-30-10, 10-52-10, 30-10-10 are all soluble MG products. The ones most fig growers are apt to reach fore are 24-8-16 (best choice) or 20-20-20. Your assertion that you would be over-applying P is correct if you are using anything but 24-8-16, 12-4-8, or 30-10-10, and the latter is inappropriate for figs in containers because of its high N content in relation to the other macro-nutrients and it's acid reaction in the soil solution. If you ARE using either 24-8-16 or 12-4-8 (the same ratio - 24-8-16 simply contains more of the 3 primary macros by weight than 12-4-8) you are supplying P in almost exactly the correct ratio. The P in fertilizers is not reported as elemental P, instead, it's reported as P2O5 (phosphorous pentoxide - K is reported as K2O). To find out how much P is ACTUALLY in the soil, we need to use a factor of .43 for the middle number. When you multiply the P in 24-8-16, you get 8 x .43 = 3.5. Taking this 1 step further, and recalling that upthread I said that plants use about 6X more N than P, dividing the amount of N in 24-8-16 by the actual amount of P (24/3.5 = 6.8) we find that MG 24-8-16 has 6.8 times as much N as P. The amount of K similarly follows the amount of K in relation to N as being provided in almost exactly the same ratio in which plants use them. Some would have you believe there was no thought that went into deciding on the ratio fertilizer manufacturers chose as their 'all-purpose' fertilizer, but from these quick calculations you can see that they provide nutrients in as close to the ratio plants use as you'll find in any commercially available fertilizer. It was no accident. Now your questions about fertilizer phosphate: The phosphate in fertilizers is initially quite soluble and available. Most phosphate fertilizers have been manufactured by treating rock phosphate (the phosphate-bearing mineral that is mined) with an acid to make it more soluble. When the fertilizer or manure phosphate comes in contact with the soil, various reactions begin occurring that make the phosphate less soluble and less available. The rates and products of these reactions are dependent on such soil conditions as pH, moisture content, temperature, and the minerals already present in the soil. This chance to an insoluble form is MUCH less prevalent in container soils because of their relatively low bulk density and high organic content. As a particle of fertilizer comes in contact with the soil, moisture from the soil will begin dissolving the particle. Dissolving of the fertilizer increases the soluble phosphate in the soil solution around the particle and allows the dissolved phosphate to move a short distance away from the fertilizer particle. Movement is slow but may be increased by rainfall or irrigation water flowing through the soil. As phosphate ions in solution slowly migrate away from the fertilizer particle, most of the phosphate will react with the minerals within the soil. (Again, this is in MINERAL soils, and not so much in container media.) Phosphate ions generally react by adsorbing to soil particles or by combining with other elements in the soil, forming compounds that are solids. The adsorbed phosphate and the newly formed solids are relatively available to meet crop needs. Gradually reactions occur in which the adsorbed phosphate and the easily dissolved compounds of phosphate form more insoluble compounds that cause the phosphate to be become fixed and unavailable. Over time this results in a decrease in soil test P. A general sequence of reactions in alkaline soils is the formation of several compounds that result in a decrease in solubility and availability of phosphate. Each of these reactions will results in very insoluble compounds of phosphate that are generally not available to plants. Adding to the active P pool through fertilization will also increase the amount of fixed P. Depleting the active pool through crop uptake may cause some of the fixed P to slowly become active P. The conversion of available P to fixed P is partially the reason for the low efficiency of P fertilizers. Most of the P fertilizer applied to the soil will not be utilized by the crop in the first season. Continued application of more P than the crops utilize increases the fertility of the soil, but much of the added P becomes fixed and unavailable. An important aspect of the ability of a soil to hold phosphate is that a soil cannot hold increasing amounts of phosphate in the solid phase without also increasing soil solution phosphate, so there is sort of a threshold. Increased amounts of phosphate in solution will potentially cause more phosphate to be lost to leaching through the soil - especially in container soils, another very good reason not to over-apply P. You asked: "If we water to the point that our pots drain, would it be wise at some point to simply provide nitrogen alone?" I would give a qualified 'NO' to that question. For us hobby growers, I don't think it's ever a good idea to provide singular elements as a fertilizer unless it's part of a well-conceived plan. When you start second guessing what you're seeing in your plants ...... well, even the experts are often fooled and misdiagnose deficiencies and related problems. We might see yellowing leaves caused by a high level of soluble salts in the soil or over-watering and conclude the plants need N, which only exacerbates the issue. I don't think it is reasonable to apply urea and wait for other deficiencies to be revealed. I think that if you are absolutely sure that all other nutrients are in the soil at adequate levels and in the right ratio and N is the only element shown to be deficient, then applying urea would be the correct thing to do, but absent that knowledge, I would stick tightly to using a 3:1:2 ratio fertilizer and flushing the soil regularly so that ratio in the soil solution isn't skewed by accumulating salts. If you CAN'T flush the soil regularly w/o risking root rot, I would take a hard look at my soil choice and switch to a soil that DOES allow you to water that copiously. Sorry I missed this, Ox .... and sorry for the length of the reply. ;o)

You express your needs very well. The key issue with digital cameras, is the mega-pixel value. The higher the mega-pixel value, the better quality picture you will get for the most part. But, the important determining factor most people use, is whether or not they plan on having prints made and what SIZE. The size of your prints AND their quality is largely dictated by the mega-pixel value. In short, if you only require prints no bigger than wallet-sized or slightly larger, a good 5 mega-pixel camera will suit your needs very well. If you intend to make prints of a size of 8 by 5 and larger, I would recommend a higher megapixel value than 5mp. The reason for this, is that with, let's say, a 3mp camera, and you have 8 by 5 prints made, the prints will come out sort of blurry and lack the crisp & clear details you need. The term for this defusion is pixelation. What that means, is that the lower mp camera cannot "capture" the large amount of detail & crispness that you may want for larger prints. A lower mp camera may take pictures into the camera at a size of 900kilobytes, which does not translate well onto a larger print. Of course I am speaking of generalities here. Many of the folks here in the forum probably learned the hard way by buying a cheaper camera & then regreting it later. The quality of many/most of the pictures here are for the most part excellent! Prices on digital cameras have fallen dramatically in the last few years, so you should be able to obtain a good camera for your needs. Another issue that is sometimes completely overlooked, is what program to use to adjust your pictures to their best appearance AND SIZE. A quality program makes this task a great deal easier. This can be seen by the time your have some super shots in your camera, and then after being reworked, they look really bad. A reasonably good program can be found from several companies. Myself, I have been using Adobe Photoshop Elements 2.0. It can be obtained for a reduced price and has filled my needs very well for processing pistures of coins which I take through a stereo microscope! Stunning pix can be obtained with a rather easy learning curve. If you want the Cadillac of photo editors, Adobe Photoshop is one of, if not the best of the many offered. But quality comes with a price, So don't waste money on a secondrate editing program, or you will not realize the results you desire! Another issue that many overlook, is the "size" of the picture when it is taken into the camera. For example, my primary digital camera is a 5.0mp Kodak. The "raw" piture inside the camera is over 12 megabytes! Much too large to email easily for all parties! Unless you have a special reason to distribute the pictures in their original size, it is redundant to a degree. My own formula for resizing pictures out of the camera, is to touch up anything like focus, brightnesss & contrast AND reduce them down to a much more managable size of 400 - 450 kilobytes. The reason for this reduction, is to make them more managable for emailing and storage in your computer. If someone sends you a picture, which do you appreciate the most, one or more that just take a few moments to download into your email at a smaller size like 400kb, OR a piture that has not be reworked at all and takes 10 minutes just to downlaod into your computer...in short, downloading a 12mb picture on a dialup, 56k, computer can take considerable time waiting for it to download. Large pix of 12mp for example usually take up the full screen and sometimes even more. The bottom line for this is that you should rework the original pictures from the camera to obtain the best appearance AND reduce them to a size that are easily managable. I am sure others here can recommend a couple of excellent cameras at your price range and advise you on the minimum mp value you have to buy to maitain your standards of quality. This interaction/cooperation of forum members is invaluable and can save you money! best wishes & good luck! I hope I answered some of your questions. And thank you to all of you who post such beautiful roses! : ) Sincerly, "Smitty"

Here's the issue with firefox, FF - user.js: extensions.BabylonToolbar_i.babTrack - affID=109936&tt=100512_2_ FF - user.js: extensions.BabylonToolbar_i.babExt - FF - user.js: extensions.BabylonToolbar_i.srcExt - ss FF - user.js: extensions.BabylonToolbar_i.id - b8457168000000000000bc7737387210 FF - user.js: extensions.BabylonToolbar_i.hardId - b8457168000000000000bc7737387210 FF - user.js: extensions.BabylonToolbar_i.instlDay - 15473 FF - user.js: extensions.BabylonToolbar_i.vrsn - 1.5.3.17 FF - user.js: extensions.BabylonToolbar_i.vrsni - 1.5.3.17 FF - user.js: extensions.BabylonToolbar_i.vrsnTs - 1.5.3.1715:35:37 FF - user.js: extensions.BabylonToolbar_i.prtnrId - babylon FF - user.js: extensions.BabylonToolbar_i.prdct - BabylonToolbar FF - user.js: extensions.BabylonToolbar_i.aflt - babsst FF - user.js: extensions.BabylonToolbar_i.smplGrp - none FF - user.js: extensions.BabylonToolbar_i.tlbrId - tb9 FF - user.js: extensions.BabylonToolbar_i.instlRef - sst FF - user.js: network.protocol-handler.warn-external.dnupdate - false FF - user.js: browser.sessionstore.resume_from_crash - false We will be getting rid of that, by running the tools above.

Okay, you twisted my arm. I've bought a new card reader for my camera and I'm posting some temp photos which will be deleted soon. I'm making supper here--chicken to work over (fat globs and other scraps go into trash), sad looking salad greens and peas (too hot outdoors and the lettuce has bolted), herbs to chop, veg and onion ready to be cut up. I usually sit at stool but DH stands here. Compost tray runs along side of blue drawer organizer (repurposed container we got with Alaskan shrimp in it). Remember--our top drawers were made shallow because of pull-out board. If I had it to do over, I'd make them just a big deeper by shortening the drawers and bins below--to prevent items from jamming drawers. I am grateful for 90 degree countertop edge because I can brush things into the trash or the pan so reliably and it cuts down the cleanup. If I did not have the pull-out board, I'd put the pan parallel to the countertop, as suggested above. Makes good sense. We used to put a big bowl or dishpan on a stool below the edge of our chopping surface when we needed to work over lots of veg or apples for freezing--same idea. I can put this pan into my top drawer under baking area pullout board also--can receive excess flour sprinkled on the countertop or the breadboard or dough scraps. You could do the same in any drawer next to a baking surface. I've extended the drawer far enough for you to see the pan within; usually we don't pull it out very far unless the front of the pan is already full or unless we're working with sloppy things like tomatoes. I put my eggshells into the pan when making breakfast--the drawer glides out so easily! I try to remember to crush them in my fist as I do this so the composting begins sooner and the shells get mixed with other items sooner. The compost bin is an Ikea item which I think has been discontinued; you buy taller ones now with the same footprint. This one has built-in handles. The boot below it allows me to roll it out with one hand. Lid is not tight and can be opened with one hand. The long compost tray is a bit awkward to handle when it's full and needs to be emptied--in an earlier moment in the evolution of the kitchen I used a different skinny pan and it was perfect to sling around, but it held a lot less. I'm used to this one now so it doesn't matter but at first I dumped it on the floor a few times when using one hand, aargh! The lesson is...don't put off emptying it when you're cleaning up the kitchen.