Sandy - If you combine equal measures by weight of the MG 23-19-17 and the 15-30-15, you would indeed end up with NPK %s of 19-25-16. If you have tomatoes, after they get a little growth, you could use the 15-30-15 in equal parts wityh 24-8-16 and be serving something they'll get along with fine. The 23-19-17 (what is this suggested for?) could probably be used for most things w/o much problem, though it too provides much more P than your plants will want or can use in relation to N (and other elements). Did you read the thread about fertilizing container plants, Sandy? I wrote the following about hi-P fertilizers so long ago I can't find it by a search. (If anyone has a link to it here on GW, would you please mail it to me so I can save the link?) Lets first look at the role of fertilizers in general. There are 6 factors that affect plant growth and yield; they are: air, water, light, temperature, soil or media, and nutrients. Liebig's Law of Limiting Factors states the most deficient factor limits plant growth and increasing the supply of non-limiting factors will not increase plant growth. Only by increasing most deficient factor will the plant growth increase. There is also an optimum combination of the factors and increasing them, individually or in various combinations, can lead to toxicity for the plant. From the above, we can say that when any nutritional element is deficient in the soil, plant growth slows. We have a term for this occurrence: environmental dormancy. When the deficient element is restored to adequacy levels the environmental constraint caused by the deficient element is eliminated and plant growth can resumes at a normal rate, as long as there are not additional limiting factors. Continuing to increase the element beyond the adequacy range offers no benefits and can deleteriously affect the plant - often in several ways, depending on the element. Somewhere along the way, we curiously began to look at fertilizers as miraculous assemblages of growth drugs, and started interpreting the restorative (of normal growth) effect of fertilizer as stimulation beyond what a normal growth rate would be if all nutrients were adequately present in soils. ItÂs no small wonder that we come away with the idea that there are Âmiracle concoctions out there and often end up placing more hope than is reasonable in them. In couplet with the hope for the Âmiracle tonic is Âmore must be betterÂ. IÂll use that idea as the lead-in to my thoughts on high phosphorous fertilizer blends. Among container growers you often find common belief that high phosphorus (P) content fertilizers are a requirement for promotion of root growth and/or flowering. Fertilizer blends like 15-30-15, and even 10-52-10 are sold under names that imply that you actually NEED these formulas for plants to bloom well and to produce strong roots. Lets examine that idea in a little more depth. While anecdotal evidence abounds, there is very little scientific evidence to show any need for such products. IÂve mentioned in other posts that high-P fertilizers are a historical carry-over from when it was most common for plants to be started in outdoor soil beds, the soil in which was usually still quite cold at sowing time. Both the solubility of P and plants ability to take it up are reduced in cold soils, so it was reasoned that fertilizing with high levels of P insured that at least some would be available during periods of growth in chilled soils. We know that tissue analysis of leaves, roots, flowers - any of the live tissues of healthy plants will reveal that P is present in tissues at an average of 1/6 that of nitrogen (N) and about 1/4 that of potassium (K). Many plants even contain as much calcium (Ca) as P. If we know that we cannot expect P to be found in higher concentrations in the roots and blooms than we find in foliage, how can we justify the belief that massive doses of P are important to their formation? It is well known among experienced growers that withholding N when all other nutrients are available at adequate levels induces bloom production on smaller and younger plants. Even though plants USE nutrients at approximately a 3:.5:2 ratio (note that N is 6 times the level of P, and K is 4 times the level of P), most greenhouse operations purposely fertilize with something very near a 2:1:2 ratio to limit vegetative growth so they can sell a compact plant sporting pretty blooms to tempt you. Simply limiting N limits vegetative growth, but it does nothing to limit photosynthesis. The plant keeps making food, but it cannot use it to grow leaves and extend stems because of the lack of N. To where should we imagine the energy goes? It goes into producing blooms and fruit. What harm might there be in a little extra P in our soils? First consider that the popular 10-52-10 has almost 32 times more P than a huge percentage of plants could ever use. Even 1:1:1 fertilizer formulas like the popular 20-20-20 are already high P formulas because they have 6.25 times more P (in relation to N) than plants require to grow robustly and normally. Evidence of phosphate overfertilizing usually always includes some degree of leaf chlorosis. P competes with iron (Fe) and manganese (Mn) ions for attachment sites and causes antagonistic deficiencies of these micronutrients. Unfortunately, the deficiency of these elements causes interveinal chlorosis (yellowing), and the first thing we normally consider as a fix for yellow leaves is more fertilizer, so we give the plants a good dose of our favorite bloom-bomb which causes, no surprise - worsening of the condition. IÂll close with an anecdote of how I used to fertilize plants with showy blooms before I had a better understanding of the overall picture. I would fertilize with a "bloom-boosting" fertilizer as long as foliage was bright green. As foliage inevitably yellowed, I would then switch to a high N formula until the color returned & start the cycle over again. I THOUGHT that the P was helping with the blooms and the yellowing was caused by a lack of N, which I quickly jumped to correct at the first evidence of yellow. I now understand that the high levels of P were what were causing the yellowing and it wasnÂt my returning to a high N formula that greened the plant up again, it was the reduction in the level of P in the soil when I stopped using the high-P formulation. Al

To all: After showing a sample of the granules to my pharmacist, who is also a farmer, and to three owners of the big local farm and home store, all thought it was Blue/Golden Malrin. All thought it was not copper sulfate. They've worked with both. So I bought a can of Malrin, but it really differs from the product put around the tree. Granule size is similar, but Malrin is a chalky light blue with soft rounded edges, whereas the suspect granules are glossy, much brighter and deeper in color, and with sharp edges. More like glass. Malrin has a strong carrion smell(the fly attractant) and my stuff doesn't have hardly any smell when dry. As I probably said before, there is a slight sulfurous smell when dry, and when burned, a medium burned rubber smell with a high and sharp smell that is like an extremely acidic, refined vinegar. Not powerful. The granules become a gooey like carbon substance when burned. We are having the lab check for Malrin, Copper Sulphate (in case my flame test was inadequate,) and general fertilizer. They do need specific ranges of chemicals to test. I'm thinking it might be a spreadable broadleaf lawn herbicide, commonly used around here, but the range of them is many. So any new suggestions for testing would be appreciated. Thanks again to all. PS: Hopefully not Malrin, unless the product appearance has changed. Read the label. Really must be used with caution.

pnb - from NIH (link follows): Sources of Selenium Food Seafoods and organ meats are the richest food sources of selenium [1]. Other sources include muscle meats, cereals and other grains, and dairy products. The amount of selenium in drinking water is not nutritionally significant in most geographic regions [2,6]. The major food sources of selenium in the American diet are breads, grains, meat, poultry, fish, and eggs [7]. The amount of selenium in a given type of plant-based food depends on the amount of selenium in the soil and several other factors, such as soil pH, amount of organic matter in the soil, and whether the selenium is in a form that is amenable to plant uptake [2,6,8,9]. As a result, selenium concentrations in plant-based foods vary widely by geographic location [1,2]. For example, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture Food Composition Database, Brazil nuts have 544 mcg selenium/ounce, but values from other analyses vary widely [10-12]. The selenium content of soil affects the amounts of selenium in the plants that animals eat, so the quantities of selenium in animal products also vary [2,5]. However, selenium concentration in soil has a smaller effect on selenium levels in animal products than in plant-based foods because animals maintain predictable tissue concentrations of selenium through homeostatic mechanisms. Furthermore, formulated livestock feeds generally contain the same levels of selenium. Here is a link that might be useful: Dietary Supplement Fact Sheet: Selenium

you rescued this dog, i'm sure with the intentions of keeping her. she NEVER should have been spayed if she was in heat, it should have waited 2-3 months post heat. unbelievable that a shelter would do this. have you taken her to a vet at all?? if not, that's what you should do, at the very least. if you don't want to "spend a lot of money" for vet care for your dog, you probably shouldn't be a dog owner. dogs are for life. i'm sorry but you don't sound like you are making much of an effort to see what this problem is and what can be done to take care of it. yes, vet care can be expensive, i know because i have 4 great danes. if this was your child, would you not take it to the doctor right away? you brought this dog home, you owe it to her to do everything possible to make sure she is healthy.