There are very few plants that satisfy a significant % of their nutritive needs via nutrients dissolved in water that contacts their foliage. The primary pathway for nutrient movement into almost all terrestrial plant material is through the roots. Foliar feeding is used in agricultural situations where a scarcity of one or more nutrients has been identified, and the plant is growing so rapidly that nutritive (plant) demand is greater than the plant's ability to supply (take up) isolated nutrients. Rarely is a complete fertilizer sprayed on foliage; rather, it might be a solution containing Fe, Z, Mn, or any of the other nutrients in attempt to alleviate a deficiency of an already identified nutrient, or sometimes more than one. In containers, plants almost never grow at rates that find the plant's ability to absorb insufficient to support it's growth rate, so if you do see significant improvement in your plants growth rate or appearance, it's a fairly good indicator that something is acting to inhibit the primary pathway or the grower isn't providing all the essential nutrients at a favorable rate and ratio. If you DO provide nutrients in a favorable rate/ratio, and root function isn't inhibited by poor conditions in the rhizosphere, you should see virtually NO difference in growth rate or appearance after foliar feeding. Also, when applying fertilizer via foliar application, it doesn't necessarily correct deficiencies. Nutrients that are immobile in the plant cannot effectively be moved throughout the entire organism, so you really are only providing a stopgap remedy. Any foliage that grows after application of immobile nutrients is still going to be deficient unless that nutrient is taken up so it enters the nutrient stream. An excess of any one nutrient can be as limiting as a deficiency, so make it your goal to ensure all the nutrients plants normally get from the soil and that are essential to normal growth are in the soil at all times, in a ratio that closely mimics that at which the plant actually uses the nutrients, and at a concentration high enough to ensure no deficiencies yet low enough that it doesn't inhibit the plant's ability to take up water and the nutrients dissolved in water. Conceptually, that would be the perfect way to fertilize, and it's not difficult for the hobby grower to get very, very close to getting it just right, using only one fertilizer, if some consideration is given to its selection. Al

i looked at a few reviews of amquel plus (kordon) - don't know if that's what you were using? it claims it does not change PH, but people say it drops it considerably (but not ALL people, so it depends on your local water formulation). here's quote: .. it significantly reduces your pH. If you continually add it to your tank without any water changes in hopes of maintaining proper water parameters, you will end up with a pH around 6.0-6.2. I buffered my water with baking soda, bringing the pH back up to 7.6, but that only lasted a couple hours until it dropped back down. ... obviously 7.6 is good for fish, but not for AV's. it seems that conditioner is formulated to keep PH neutral (which is NOT good for av's) on the other hand 6-6.2 SHOULD be OK for AV's...(if not for fish;)) ...so it gets kinda complicated, since your water plays a big role too. also conditioner binds heavy metals (copper,zinc)! from optimara site: Optimum soil pH ranges from 5.8 and 6.2. A good potting soil, which has been blended especially for African Violets, will have the correct pH. However, there are other factors which can affect pH, such as concentrations of fertilizer salts and soft water. If the pH of the potting soil varies too much from 5.8 to 6.2, your African Violet will not be able to absorb the proper amount of nutrients it needs. For instance, high pH can result in a deficiency of iron, whereas low pH can result in a deficiency in phosphorus. ..[ either one will cause slow growth rate] ..later on... slow growth might be happening due to zinc defficiency (!). to make the long story short - you're neutralizing/removing chloramines, but also might be playing with PH and fertilizer absorbtion rates. ..later on.. do not use soft water. Soft water increases the saline content in your potting soil... i also read that.. all municipal water systems in the western world add soda ash or sodium hydroxide or a similar alkali substance, to get the pH up to 8 or even 9! as far as using spring water - you need to know where it comes from and it's alkalinity and PH still! it might be soft too naturally (like in FL and many other parts of the country). ... my head is ringing already from all this.... Here is a link that might be useful: optimara on PH

this might be a good case for a 2 tier island.... make it deeper also.[on dinette side would be the raised area obviously].consider constructing 2 posts with architectural interest rising from counter to ceiling,or right down to the floor with detailed legs as part of the posts. Everyone can appreciate your nice design and the lg sq footage of your home,however there is absence of zone creation generally in this kitchen/eating area. Your kitchen is obviously staying put,and not sure what else can be done beyond it because of the angled wall and 3 walk areas uniting[garage,outdoors and to family room]. Not sure that running peninsulas in your kitchen would have value. therefore,the island is the spot to notch it up with architectural interest and by increasing the size it will make for a different balance in terms of an element in the design.I would look at quite a few pictures on houzz or Christopher peacock kitchens,etc to find examples and get a style [which i can't really tell from your pictures]. Then the millwork, details of the island with posts/etc will follow along. You did place 2 chunkier legs on the island-just get a much bigger vision for the island-thicker top-in 2 materials or complex corners/edge treatment/etc. I thought of adding a 4 ft wide wall where island is-keeping the split entrance to kitchen, applying cabinets/etc on kitchen side and on dinette side laying it with stone or tile with a ledge and stools with pendant lights hanging down-mostly atmospheric but it would create a break with some visual interest in that long expanse between kitchen and patio doors. I have a hunch you wouldn't be eager to add a wall-so focus on the island would have similar effect. I would do something on the angled wall near table-just narrower depth, a different inish-maybe some posts here to tie in with island interest. Does a slightly rustic/contemporary style fit in with your ideas-I can see that in your space.

Yeah ... lots of critical things to consider such as initial and changing pH effects*, buffering, multivalent cations, anionic and cationic micronutrients, and zeolite like ion exchange surfaces on soil particles, which make it a play day for chemistry discussions. Then the attack and breakdown of plant and animal litter to slow release nutrients brings up neat microbiology and biochemistry aspects. Material science then decides to manipulate the situation with osmotic release and diffusion of encapsulated nutrients. And hydroponic principles try to partially play nature taking over the hydrology and lighting it up. Physics kicks ideas in there on this last aspect. For instance did you know that fluorescent light indeed glow when struck by energy (as you know), but much of the light intensity flashes through a series of distinct colors at 60 times a second? * Plants cheat neatly by manipulating ion exchange release of cationic nutrients. They knock off ammonium, potassium, magnesium, calcium and other positively charged ions by producing acid(s) to knock it off. H+ alone can cause the exchange but if the acid is on a small organic base (anion) like oxalate this organic can diffuse around and pull at the cations on soil that the plant wants and help knock it off, helping in the "weathering" breakdown of soil too. Chelators made by plants and microbes make it really interesting too. They diffuse around and hold certain critical nutrients so tightly that the plant has the choice of finding more, having a deficiency (specific nutrient starving), making a stronger chelator to take it back, and/or breaking the chelator down to free the nutrient. Now the fun parts ... the plant one might be considering is not be alone. A group of similar or different roots might be working together AND competing in that patch of soil, with different players at different depths Trees cheat and certain non woody plants cheat and go low. Moles, gophers and field mice run through this soil zone toox playing their games. No soil contact then no nutrient uptake, no root then no nutrient collection there for the plant, loss of stored nutrients and need to spend energy replacing the root. And there are smaller life forms co-inhabating the soil with the roots that are also directly or indirectly effected by soil pH. Let's put them into three classes as those that (1) don't generally effect a plant much, (2) can hurt the plant, or (3) can help the plant. Let's see ... hurting a plant is bad, unless it hurts a seriously competitive plant more. Helping a plant is good, unless it's again that serious competitor. Plants are not stand alone organisms in naturem. They live in community with microorganisms. So what if the soil pH helps support the growth of a microbe that can grow all over your plants roots? Sounds bad I know, but there are those three classes mentioned above. If your microbe is a pathogen that is bad. If it doesn't attack the plant but runs out and breaks down nearby leaf litter, great free food. It it doesn't hurt your plant but by being on root surfaces can compete with and stop pathogenic microbes from getting a foothold, great a free natural inoculation for immunity. There was a company called Eden Bioscience a couple decades ago here in the PNW that made an interesting observation. In large scale evergreen seedling production for forestry sometimes there were large scale fungal blights. Sadly alot of the seedlings all died at once in mass. However, sometimes there were a few seedlings near each other that did not succumb! In fact they looked totally healthy! When isolating bacteria, yeast and filamentous fungi from the surfaces of these plants they found that certain kinds could be grown in the lab that protected seedlings from attack, when sprayed onto them. These microbes grew best in their optimal pH range. They indeed colonized the plants, in this case leaf surfaces. And their presence did protect the leaves from pathogen attack. Obviously similar things must be happening in nature in the leaf canopy and also soil root zone of plants. So when a plant likes acidic pH 5 - 6 soil, is this just because nutrients are more available it? When I went to school, in what now seems like the dark ages, most plant physiology books focused almost solely on this. Or is it because beneficial microbes helping feed or protect the plant need that pH? My firm assumption is that both chemical and microbial pH dependent effects interact to make an optimum environment for that plant. And that some plants in the natural environment survive best, rather than grow best, at their optimal pH range. Why do many fungi sour (strongly acidify) what they are busy rotting? Niether competive microbes nor does the dieing plant tissue like it. The fungus gets more. This is exactly why you want to check the pH in the soil that you might be soon preparing for your new vegetable or herb garden this spring. Too basic, your plants starve. Too acidic, the pathogenic fungi don't starve. Then like the heirloom story of The Three Bears ... there's one pH that's just right.