Organics in containers: so many questions!

last year

After some extensive searching on this forum, I gather that there is a prevalent notion that organic fertilizing doesn't work for container gardening, due to the lack/instability of soil life to process the nutrients.
I have been wondering a few things related to this topic, so I am grouping my questions into one thread. If anyone has any insight on this it would be much appreciated.
1) When people say organics don't work in pots, are they only referring to things like banana peels and eggshells etc, or does this also apply to commercially available liquid organic fertilizers such as the many fish-based and algae based liquid fertilizers, such as Neptune's Harvest or MG's Performance Organics liquid fertilizers?
2) Are there any actual comparative studies showing differences between plants grown with synthetic vs organic bottled liquid fertilizers and a control of no fertilizer at all?
3) Is there a difference in salt content between these types of fertilizers? Are bottled synthetic fertilizers saltier than bottled organic ones?
4) Is there any benefit to homemade "teas" such as alfalfa or neem meal teas, for container gardening?
5) Several cannabis growing brands sell enzyme solutions which are supposed to be used in conjunction with an organic fertilizer regimen. Have these been proven to be of any benefit to container grown plants' ability to absorb the nutrients in organic ferts?
6) What about when these enzymes are used in conjunction with co-enzymes (trace minerals)?
A lot of questions at once, I know. If anyone has links or references I would be especially interested in replies based on actual comparative tests and research, but personal empirical observations are also very welcome!

Featured Answer

tapla (mid-Michigan, USDA z5b-6a)

last year

I'm still trying to find a balance that is versatile enough to retain enough water so plants can be watered only every other day in our scorching hot, endless summers, but also drain very well for those four months a year in winter when we get torrential downpours multiple times a week. A couple of ways you can turn extra drainage on and off, so it works for you as needed: 1) When it rains, tip your pots at a 45* angle. compare B to A to see how much difference (it's considerable) this can make with minimal effort.

Why this works: The maximum height of the perched water table any given medium supports is a constant, no matter the size or shape of the container, the max ht will always be the same for THAT medium. You see this at work in A, B, C, D.

Figure E illustrates how a drainage wick reduces the volume of excess (perched) water a planting can hold. While not 100% technically correct, you can think of the wick as 'fooling' water in the pot into acting like the pot is deeper than it actually is. This causes water to move down the wick looking for the bottom of the pot. The weight of the water above the bottom of the wick pushes water off the dangling end of the wick. It's very effective unless the medium is irredeemably water-retentive. To void the effects of the wick, you can remove it, or just fold it under the pot so it no longer dangles below the bottom.

is there a difference in how fast the plant absorbs [organic fertilizers)? If an organic liquid fertilizer is labeled as being, say, NPK 6-2-4, that should provide the same nutrition as a synthetic one with the same NPK on the label. But would the plant uptake be faster with the synthetic? When using organic amendments like fish/ seaweed, or ground hoof/ horn/ feather/ bone/ blood, rice hull/ alfalfa meal, etc, the nutrients will be locked up tight in the hydrocarbon chains that make up these materials, which is a form unavailable for direct uptake by the plant. When these chains pass through the gut or otherwise mineralized in the grow medium, the nutrients gradually become available in a form the plant can take up directly. At that point, at the point of uptake, the salts that originated in any of these organic materials will be exactly the same as the salts in a container of Miracle-Gro or any other brand of soluble synthetic fertilizer.

When you read the NPK %s on the label of an organic material, you're being informed of the weight (by %) of nitrogen, phosphorous, and potassium, none of which is immediately available, and in almost all hobby growing endeavors, WHEN it will be available is subject to the whims of nature. So the total amount of nutrition might be the same for any given NPK % when comparing organic to synthetic, but the rate of delivery and control is vastly different. Soluble synthetics are immediately available and give the grower complete control of the supplementation process (not withstanding the small amount of misc nutrition which might become available as soil hydrocarbon chains are cleaved).

You may hear or read how synthetic fertilizers like MG and others make the soil so toxic nothing can grow in it and on and on. That's not science, it's politics. I'll leave something I wrote below. You might find it interesting.

I use organic fertilizer the rest of the time (weakly weekly), not due to ideology but because I have caused problems for my plants with too high synthetic ferts before and I never want to do that to them again. I always think it's better to under-fertilize than the opposite, so long as no deficiencies are showing. All I use is a soluble synthetic (FP 9-3-6), and I fertilize weekly at 1/6X the maximum suggested production (highest) rate. As long as you are using a medium that allows you to water correctly w/o paying a watering tax in the form of root function/ health problems, you have a lot of margin for error as long as you aren't dealing with temperature extremes. Perhaps an issue for you, making the weakly weekly strategy a better choice.

If anyone aside from you is reading this, I might mention that using organic forms of nutrition doesn't grant immunity to fertilizer burn or ammonium toxicity. When temps are cool, people often fertilize several times with various organic sources. Low soil biota activity limits breakdown of the fertilizer, so when warm temps come, several applications can become available all at once, making plasmolysis (fertilizer burn) and ammonium toxicity (especially if the soil/ medium is wet) a real issue that often goes undiagnosed, or more often misdiagnosed.

This is what I thought you might find interesting:

In my gardens and beds, I adhere pretty strictly to the idea that on an ongoing basis you should use organic products/soil amendments that build the soil structure to minimize the need for soluble (read synthetic) fertilizers and nutrient supplements. That said, there are times you NEED individual nutrients to complete the assortment of essential nutrients plants take from the soil. If you're limited by a rigid 'no chemical' ideology, you either deal with the abnormal and sub-par growth or wait, while you hope adding more organic matter eventually solves all the issues. If you are NOT limited by rigid ideology, the issue is easily solved with a soil test and the addition of the appropriate nutrient(s) via a chemical compound like potash, various nitrates, phosphates, etc.

There are extremists at both ends of the organic vs. chemical approach to gardening. Some never think about the soil, believing it ok to keep adding chemicals to ‘hopefully’ produce growth. Others would never THINK of using a chemical and will chastise anyone who does. When it comes to my gardens and beds, I'm in the middle, but as noted I do lean quite heavily toward the organic side, though I stop short of telling anyone what they must do to be a good gardener. ;o)

Where container culture is the topic, soluble synthetic fertilizers get the nod from me - hands down. They are easier to use; we know exactly what nutrients your plants are getting and when they are getting them; delivery of nutrients does not depend on the activity of soil organisms whose populations vary in boom/bust cycles in containers; you're using a soluble product, not an organic soil amendment that has the potential to clog valuable macro-pores; you needn’t worry about soil structure, because if you’re smart you’ll have built it into the medium before you planted in it ….. but let’s save the container soil topic for another day.

I mentioned there are those at one end of the spectrum who would never lift a finger to improve their soil. Adding organic matter to their soils would be as foreign to them as adding exercise to their life’s itinerary. On the other end, are those who stand ululating and hand-flapping (credit to Dan for that one) at the very thought of anyone using Miracle-Gro. From the plant’s perspective, both extreme positions are ridiculous, and from my perspective, both extremes are unnecessarily self-limiting. The plant just wants to grow to it’s genetic potential. To do that, it needs a full compliment of the nutrients plants take from the soil, and it doesn’t care if they come from compost or Miracle-Gro.

Perhaps a more logical approach to plant nutrition might be to look at soluble synthetic fertilizers in the same way we look at IPM practices. Use the most naturally harmonious method/product we can to bring plant growth or yields into the acceptable range. I realize that in most cases, we can do this by adding more OM, but not always. Often too, time is a consideration. We may have someone who wants to plant immediately, in soil that is deficient in one or more nutrients. We probably shouldn't expect someone to forgo their own freedom of choice and wait two years or more while the soil is fortified/improved only via the addition of organic matter.

There is a technical difference between a fertilizer and a soil amendment, but even that point eventually becomes moot from a strictly nutritional perspective. Plants take up elements that are dissolved in the soil solution and in ionic form. What they take up are salts. The large molecules that make up hydrocarbon chains in organic fertilizers/soil amendments cannot be taken up by the plant unless the hydrocarbon chains are broken down into elemental/soluble form by soil organisms. At that point, the elements from soluble fertilizers are the same as the elements from organic sources, which is why the plant could care less. At the point in time where nutrients are assimilated, they are ALL soluble and in elemental form, regardless if they came from a dead fish, compost or a hose-end sprayer.

If we could only achieve happy healthy plants in a soil teaming with life, using only organic soil amendments and fertilizers, how do we explain hydroponics? ... no medium, or an entirely inorganic one, and only soluble sources of nutrients. At the very least it suggests there is a middle ground in which everyone can seek their comfort level. I’ve been growing perfectly healthy plants in containers in a medium whose only organic fraction is 1/3 or less pine or fir bark; the rest of the ingredients are large mineral particles like Turface and crushed granite. I’ve used ONLY soluble fertilizers in these soils, with the hundreds of pictures I’ve posted here at GW serving as concrete proof that happy, healthy plants can indeed be grown using only synthetic soluble fertilizers if the soil structure is favorable …… which leads me to the reason for writing this:

Colloquially, the term 'organic' formerly applied to things once living, but even some plastics contain carbon and are considered organic compounds as well. It really is misleading when we throw the word around w/o much consideration, but I admit to being guilty of it from time to time as well. Technically, urea, ureaformaldehyde, isobutylidene diurea, and crotonylidene diurea (forgive me if the spelling is slightly off) are all organic molecules, and actually do an extremely good job of feeding microbes, which reinforces the idea that synthetic fertilizers are getting framed for the microbial murder rap that should be hung on the effects of reduced OM in the soils. The microbial murder rap should be hung on the effects of reduced OM in the soils; purposely redundant so it couldn’t be missed.

It's a vicious circle; mineral soils can support optimal plant growth (nutritionally speaking) only if enough young decaying matter is returned to the soil regularly and frequently. Prairies and forests are virtually self sustaining because all vegetative matter is recycled back into the soil. If we regularly mow and bale the grassland, or log off the forest, nutritional deficiencies are assured as a result of our removal of the OM that would have provided future nutrition - thus the tendency/need for us to adhere to the practice of replacing the lost nutrients with chemicals.

In our gardens/beds/lawns ..., we can add compost or other OM to replace the vegetative matter we remove and use or discard. For more than 20 years, I've used compost regularly in the gardens/beds, and apply fine pine bark mulch 2-3" thick, usually every other year. I have extremely healthy soil and rarely find it necessary to use anything synthetic.

You can find opinions all over the net that chemical fertilizers are laying waste to the landscape, and wiping out microbial populations faster than chocolate disappears from the candy dish in the family room. Are these opinions based on political views and a radical ideology, or warranted and based in fact?

In research by Texas A&M University, intensely managed (read ‘managed using chemical fertilizers‘) sports fields with mostly a sand substrate showed no shortage of soil life. That is there were 10s of millions of bacteria, and 10s to 100s of thousands of fungi per cubic centimeter present in the heavily managed soils. Part of the study included measuring soil life in 11 inches (deep) of pure sand, with no organic amendments whatsoever, over which washed sod was placed. As the sod 'grew in', soil life populations increased almost immediately, 10-100 times .

Soil life populations just sort of hang loose, waiting for something they can digest. If they don't get it, they die and feed off each other. When organic matter is introduced into the soil, they break it down, and their numbers increase. When they've consumed the organic matter, they die and consume each other, but the base population remains, ready to spring into action the moment more organic matter becomes available.

What do fertilizers do? They make plants grow. Sure, extremely high concentrations of chemical fertilizer poured on the soil in volume might kill some microbes in the immediate area, but the o/a affect of chemical fertilizers is actually an increase in microbial populations through increased plant growth. You need only look to the fact that the rhizosphere (root zone) of plants is such a popular gathering place for soil biota to see increased plant mass promotes a marked increase in soil life. It's actually the continual 'taking' of OM from gardens, agricultural fields, lawns ... w/o replacing it that reduces or inhibits the communal activity of microbial populations. Even then, they're virtually never in short supply and are ever ready to bounce back ... if you just give them something to eat.

None of this addresses the hot button political, ideological issues too many wish to export from their own value set, other than the fact it points out the folly in occupying the margin’s extremes. Again, I'm pretty pragmatic and results oriented, so I tend to approach this subject from a plant/soil perspective and leave the politics to the ideologues. My personal view is that in the o/a picture, a chemical fertilizer or nutrient supplement judiciously and responsibly applied to our gardens when it's found to be needed isn't the earth's end; and I prefer to use my own sense of right/wrong to set my course, rather than be told what I need to do to be a good, responsible student of husbandry.

That said, avoidance of unnecessary chemicals in the gardens/beds to the greatest degree I feel is reasonable, is still my normal MO. YMMV, but options are good, and I prefer to keep them open.

Sort by:Oldest

Comments (12)

tapla (mid-Michigan, USDA z5b-6a)
last year
1) When people say organics don't work in pots, are they only referring to things like banana peels and eggshells etc, or does this also apply to commercially available liquid organic fertilizers such as the many fish-based and algae based liquid fertilizers, such as Neptune's Harvest or MG's Performance Organics liquid fertilizers? If someone makes an absolute statement essentially saying supplying nutrients by using what would more accurately be called soil supplements (rather than fertilizers) doesn't or won't work, they very likely don't have any idea what they are talking about. At a minimum, discussion of the topic must necessarily require some qualification about the statements being made. If nutrients were plant food, it could be said that a plant's diet consists of salts, which are a product of a reaction between an acid and a base. Ultimately, the plant doesn't care if the salts were made in a chemical plant somewhere or they became available through dissolution of the hydrocarbon chains in which the chemicals are locked. Whether the chemical salts come packaged in a plastic bag/ bottle, or they arrive as dead fish/ seaweed, or ground hoof/ horn/ feather/ bone/ blood, rice hull/ alfalfa meal, the salts ultimately taken up by plants are the same.

I choose soluble synthetic fertilizers because 1) they give me a level of control over what nutrients my plant gets and when they get them that can't reliably be equaled by using soil amendments. Generally speaking, the combination of conventional container culture and hobby growers (myself included) is not conducive to reliably stable populations of soil biota required to cleave hydrocarbon chains such that nutrients become predictably available. The typical delivery is closer to boom/ bust than stable. 2) My experience has led me to a place where I consider the primary job of a grow medium is to provide a structural aggregation capable of holding an air:water combination highly conducive to a healthy root system over the expected life of the planting. This means stability of the mix must be built into the cake for at least as long as the entire mass of the soil column is fully colonized with roots and the roots actually become a part of the grow medium's structure. If we are to depend on breakdown of the substrate as the primary source of nutrition, we must be willing to sacrifice structure on the altar of nutrition, and in my mind it's just not worth it. I have no issue at all with growers who wish to confine themselves to an all-organic ideology, but working within the bounds of a narrowed set of parameters is limiting.
2) Are there any actual comparative studies showing differences between plants grown with synthetic vs organic bottled liquid fertilizers and a control of no fertilizer at all? I'm sure there are, but because of the control and stability that would need to be in place to measure the results would be largely absent for the hobby grower, given the relatively uncontrolled conditions almost all hobby growers are used to
3) Is there a difference in salt content between these types of fertilizers? Are bottled synthetic fertilizers saltier than bottled organic ones? ..... no way to answer given the difference in bulk densities, water content, NPK % ......
4) Is there any benefit to homemade "teas" such as alfalfa or neem meal teas, for container gardening? There are likely some under certain conditions, but Linda Chalker-Scott, Ph.D, whose reputation is built primarily on her fame for dispelling horticultural myths, is not big on such. See Myth of Compost Teas - parts I, II, and III.
5) Several cannabis growing brands sell enzyme solutions which are supposed to be used in conjunction with an organic fertilizer regimen. Have these been proven to be of any benefit to container grown plants' ability to absorb the nutrients in organic ferts? Above my pay grade, but there are probably more myths surrounding cannabis culture as all the rest of gardening applications combined.
6) What about when these enzymes are used in conjunction with co-enzymes (trace minerals)? See reply to question 5.
Al
seasiderooftop thanked tapla (mid-Michigan, USDA z5b-6a)
seasiderooftop
Original Author
last year
Thank you very much for your reply Tapla!

What you said makes a lot of sense to me. I understand that organics in pots may be less reliable due to the instability of soil life in the pot, which is in any case far less rich than in the ground.

I am learning a lot from your posts here and in many other threads about soil structure, and how I may have been doing more harm than good by trying to improve drainage with amendments when I was really just clogging things up. I'm still trying to find a balance that is versatile enough to retain enough water so plants can be watered only every other day in our scorching hot, endless summers, but also drain very well for those four months a year in winter when we get torrential downpours multiple times a week. I have a lot to learn!

About organic liquid fertilizers in pots, is there a difference in how fast the plant absorbs them? If an organic liquid fertilizer is labeled as being, say, NPK 6-2-4, that should provide the same nutrition as a synthetic one with the same NPK on the label. But would the plant uptake be faster with the synthetic?

I use organic with an occasional synthetic boost (especially during the rainy season). My thinking is that the synthetic ones will absorb faster and replenish nutrients flushed out by heavy rains more efficiently, but I could be wrong. I use organic fertilizer the rest of the time (weakly weekly), not due to ideology but because I have caused problems for my plants with too high synthetic ferts before and I never want to do that to them again. I always think it's better to under-fertilize than the opposite, so long as no deficiencies are showing.

Thanks for the links regarding the teas, unfortunately I can't open them (geographic restriction?) but I googled the researcher and was able to find some articles summarizing the gist of it. I will not use them. Thank you for that!

Regarding enzymes and co-enzymes, I will keep looking. Just to clear things up, I don't grow cannabis personally, although in Malta as of a few years ago it's legal to have a couple of plants for personal use at home. This has led to the local garden centers being flooded with cannabis-centric brands and I've been curious about some of the ingredients they promote. It's all marketed as very science-y but I don't want to get conned.

The claims about enzymes seemed particularly interesting, both from the nutrition availability boosting aspect and also because they say enzymes can help decompose dead root matter, which seemed like it might also be useful to avert root rot. If I can find any research showing any proven benefits I will post it here!

Thanks again for your detailed reply!
Related Discussions
I have so many questions :)
Q
Comments (3)
Hi Jamie, I'm a beginner in Gritty Mix too and only have a few Japanese maples in it so far, so hopefully someone will correct anything I say in error. From what I've read, Reptibark is the right size for the Gritty mix. I don't think it is composted, but that seems to be okay. (Partially-composed is recommended for 5-1-1.) I unfortunately can't remember the size of orchid bark and I haven't had many of the types of plants you're growing. However if you need the Gritty to retain more moisture, you can screen bark through 1/2" and then 1/8" screen; then increase the amount of Turface and decrease the amount of granite. (Wil tr to link thread below.) Wrt re-potting, get as much of the old soil off as possible but you don't need to go crazy. For maples, I use the stream of water from a hose and chopsticks. I also typically get the soil in a new pot thoroughly wet before putting a tree/plant into it, then backfill with more soil, then water again. However I don't know if this process would apply to succulents. There's another post up right now about using MG potting mix in 5-1-1, that might help with your hanging baskets. However I would do a search on what others have used for hanging baskets as well. hth, Deanna Here is a link that might be useful: More moisture retentive Gritty mix
...See More
so many questions......
Q
Comments (5)
I agree with Babka. A couple of years ago I was in the planning process of a bed that wasn't ready yet but I didn't want to loose a year in plant development. I ended up potting up around 1-1/2 dozen new nursery plants and several divisions for overwintering and planting in the spring. All were potted in gallon pots. The best I could do was crowd them close to the east wall of my garage so they were out of the scorge of the "Hawk" which is what we call the dessicsatings NW wind here it the north during winters. What surprised me was that once in the ground they actually were, developmentally, a year ahead of hosta of the same age that I had put directly into the ground. I have 3 'Blue Angel' that were put in the ground last year that are over 36" this year. In 2009 they were splits from a single nursery plant in a 6" pot. Your minis should do just fine in pots only slightly larger than their root system. If I want to keep hosta in pots longer I only upgrade the pot size 2" each year. But that is a generalizaation. If roots are starting to circle I might upsize one additional size. Good luck. For a person who likes really large hosta I have as many comments about my 'Blue Mouse Ears' and my daughters and I are going to Contrary Marys this week and I will be looking for more "ears" - 'Frosted Mouse Ears' is #1 on my list. I really would like to develop a dwarf hosta garden with everything miniaturized including statuary. Wouldn't that be awesome! Les
...See More
So many questions, so little time..Help re:Bottlebrush
Q
Comments (3)
We were at Martha's on the same day! I was getting one of their Almond Verbena shrubs (smells so good!). Yes, the two bottlebrush shrubs are the same. Little John is considered a dwarf even though it can get to about 6' tall. I've been growing one from a 1 gallon container for about 4 years now and it's just under 3'x3' now. Mine is in a semi-protected spot against our fence and has never suffered any damage in the winter.
...See More
So many questions for my Kitchen Renovation
Q
Comments (10)
That island already has very tight clearances, and if you try to cram seats in the space, you're going to end up with a traffic jam and some accidents. It already needs to be narrower, and then you want seating for 5? Gonna be tough to accomplish safely. There's only the single drawer stack to the right of the sink. That's not great for your storage needs. Drawers hold a lot more than do doors with shelves. To be able to put in a large pro style range, you will need to rework the entire stove run, base and uppers. The easiest thing would be to take the cabinets down entirely, as you'll need a larger vent that won't work with that size uppers. That vent will need to vent to the exterior. Which means going up through the roof or horizontally through a wall to the exterior. If you also want to add a wall oven, probably beside the fridge or at the end of the run on the fridge wall, then that entire run will need to be redone as well. There are several other issues that need remedy such as the shallow above the fridge cabinet. Potentially the soffit itself. You've already spent more in labor than the cabinets cost the builder. 2-3K in labor. The cabinets do not look to be worth paying labor to paint. It's certainly not a granite kitchen without new cabinets. Professionally painting would be around 3-4K for your layout and you're still left with builder's grade cabs with paint with all of their current storage issues and lack of quality. If you can DIY paint them as an interim solution for a couple of years until you do a full scale remodel that would be a different story. DIY labor is always worth doing if you don't kill yourself doing it. But the moment you start having to pay labor, that becomes the point that this kitchen isn't worth reworking cosmetically. It's time to address the bones. Take the 7K that it would cost you to do the cabinet alterations and paint and buy new cabinets after posting your layout here for suggestions for optimum efficiency. That means that your project won't be done before you move in, but it's better that it's delayed and done right than done in a rush with not so great results. Also, be very sure that you want to live with a dark floor if it's as dark as it sounds. Dark floors show every bit of dust and dirt and aren't the easiest thing to live with even if you don't have kids. Medium toned floors are more forgiving. But, if you LOVE that floor, and you're fully informed and willing to take on it's upkeep, then by all means go for it! Buy plenty of extra so that when you redo your kitchen, you have enough to work with an altered layout.
...See More
Michele Rossi
last year
last modified: last year
Hello dear @tapla (mid-Michigan, USDA z5b-6a)! I don't know if this is the right thread to talk about this topic in. What do you think of products like this? You can translate it by using Google. https://www.cifo.it/prodotto/home-e-garden/prodotti-hg/nutrizione-e-bellezza/specialita/algatron-energia-pura-per-tutte-le-piante/ For more information, I add the composition on the bottle: Organic nitrogen 0.2%, organic carbon of biological origin 0.7%, pH (10% w/v in water) 4.5%.
tapla (mid-Michigan, USDA z5b-6a)
last year
My first inclination is to look with a good dose of cynicism at what information is on the package. Eleanor's VF11 and Superthrive are 2 US products which claim miracles on the package, but one would be hard-pressed in the extreme to find any notable results.

ALGATRON is a seaweed based specialty obtained from Macrocystis integrifolia. OK, it's a seaweed emulsion which contains precious little seaweed. This is made apparent in that the product only contains .2% N.
The exclusive production process keeps all natural biologically active substances such as carbohydrates, vitamins, essential amino acids and polyphenols intact. Pureeing seaweed would do that, and adding an antibiotic would preserve the product - a very common practice for organic emulsions.

ALGATRON, thanks to the natural substances contained, positively influences germination and radical development, 'Radical' is usually used in mathematical applications, while 'radicle' in this context refers to the root radicle, the first organ to emerge from the seed. Root radicles need nothing extraneous in order to extend and develop because the seed provides everything a new plant needs until the first true leaves appear. Water the product contains would "positively influence" both germination and radicle development.

intensifies the natural defenses towards physiological and biological stress (frost, drought, nutritional imbalance, etc.), and favors the growth and maturation of fruit and vegetablesi [sic]. This is an extremely broad brush. If the product contains a significant volume of opalescent silicon, the claim would be valid; but all nutrients + water do exactly what the product claims.

Organic nitrogen 0.2%, organic carbon of biological origin 0.7%, pH (10% w/v in water) 4.5%. 0.2% nitrogen is insignificant. Roots expel carbon in the form of CO2, and plants gather all the carbon they can use from the atmosphere. "organic carbon of organic origin" simply refers to the hydrocarbon chains from which the seaweed is Because of the small volume used and the buffering capacity of the water and medium it's mixed into, the grow medium + water used to irrigate + the fertilizer being used will determine the pH, unless the grower has a hand in adjusting pH levels.

My guess is that the product isn't worth buying. I wouldn't buy it at any price based only on what info is available so far. I say this because of the loopholes in the hype, and the fact there is nothing in the list of ingredients that can't be had by adding 1/4 tsp of 46-0-0 urea to 5 gallons (roughly 20L) of water.

Al
seasiderooftop thanked tapla (mid-Michigan, USDA z5b-6a)
seasiderooftop
Original Author
last year
@tapla I have been carefully reading your reply to my last post (sorry I can't @ you properly, Houzz is being difficult these days).

I don't think I can do the inclined pot thing, at least not as a permanent situation. On my windy rooftop I try for maximum pot stability. But I can go around and tilt them for a few minutes after heavy rains. And I can definitely do the wick thing. I will experiment.

One of the things you wrote that has been a real eye-opener is the following: "when warm temps come, several applications can become available all at once, making plasmolysis (fertilizer burn) and ammonium toxicity (especially if the soil/ medium is wet) a real issue that often goes undiagnosed, or more often misdiagnosed."

This would explain a mysterious death I've had early this summer, where a plant appeared to suddenly start frying and extra watering only seemed to make it accelerate. Other plants nearby were fine, so it wasn't just the heat killing it. That plant had powdered bat guano and pelletized composted sheep manure and neem cake powder mixed in with the potting mix. The toxicity of these "dormant" organic ferts becoming available all at once due to rising temperatures is something I had never considered, thank you very much for explaining that! I am definitely staying away from any solid organic fertilizers in my pots in the future.

That being said, synthetics have been the cause of their own share of disasters in my garden, in particular that awful Masterblend stuff which caused burns on my roses even at ⅔ strength, and which I hold responsible for an unprecedented outbreak of mildew that even spread to disease-resistant roses that had been mildew-free for two years with no spray. I know the Masterblend didn't GIVE them mildew, but I do think it shocked them so much that they became vulnerable to diseases they had always resisted just fine.

I agree with you that ideology and politics should not drive gardening decisions. I am just trying to be gentle with my plants, while giving them the water and nutrients they need to resist the high winds and heat can be a challenge for plants here. Definitely good to keep options open, keep learning and be open to change as I learn!

Thank you for sharing your perspective on all of this!
tapla (mid-Michigan, USDA z5b-6a)
last year
Just one things I might add - ammonium toxicity is very common and almost never diagnosed by hobby growers. The combination of plants in wet media (especially cold wet media [<55*F/ 13*C]) or compacted soils (low oxygen) + fertilizers containing blood/ hoof/ horn/ feather/ cottonseed meal or urea as the primary or only source of N are most apt to cause the toxicity.

Al
seasiderooftop thanked tapla (mid-Michigan, USDA z5b-6a)
Kimberly Wendt (Florida Z. 10b)
last year
Eye opening thread and great resource/info here. Thank you to @tapla (mid-Michigan, USDA z5b-6a) for the in depth explanations. I've been transitioning to organic while at the same time doing a lot of container gardening for the first time ever. (Have experience with lots of in ground gardening ... but that doesn't work in south florida sand without great effort.)

I too, have noticed the 'winter' toxicity (nutrient lock) issue - but honestly didn't quite know how to deal with it other than immediately pulling the plant out of it's soil bed and repotting it in 'clean' fresh potting mix. The old bed soil gets checked for nemetodes, groups, ground aphids, pH whackiness and anything else I can think of. If it's not got bugs... I've put the old soils into the compost heap/bins and let nature mix it around again. I've learned to 'back off' on my amendments and try to watch/understand the plant first. It's forums and posts like these that really help.
klem1
last year
Fine write-up tapla (mid-Michigan, USDA z5b-6a) mighty fine and on behalf of gardeners like myself that try and keep an open mind,thank you. Our peak planting season is less than 60 days away and I will be experimenting with some of what you said here. The bad news is for those who were going to get excess transplants I have in trays. I will be intentionally transplanting a few into containers with potential for plasmolysis (fertilizer burn) and ammonium toxicity along side a few "underfed" by some standards. Spend time research reading instead of catalog browsing and overbuying for a change.
tapla (mid-Michigan, USDA z5b-6a)
last year
last modified: last year
@klem1 Thanks for the kind words, Klem.

Often suggest that, when it comes to growing things, people put their efforts into broadening their knowledge base rather than wasting time trying to learn by trial and error. Even when we get bit on the butt by our mistakes and realize we made a mistake, we still need enough knowledge to link the effect to the cause. W/o that understanding, we're very likely to repeat the mistake, plus, progression by trial and error is painfully slow. If we learn first, then use our practical applications to verify what we already know, we'll leave the trial and error crowd standing in our slipstream.

This part, I didn't understand: " I will be intentionally transplanting a few into containers with potential for plasmolysis (fertilizer burn) and ammonium toxicity along side a few "underfed" by some standards."

Al
klem1
last year
"This part, I didn't understand ",

L:OL It does sound a little foolish but observing plants suffering from known cause hopefully sharpens eyes to recognize symptoms another time and place should they appear. I was born into agriculture and fascinated by experimentation and trials. Seed company trial plots and livestock breeding has been replaced by plants I can manage in my back yard and occasional animals I talk my Grandson into buying. I usually have enough cuttings and seedlings each Spring to sacrifice a few to trial and error experiments after supplying friends.
tapla (mid-Michigan, USDA z5b-6a)
last year
last modified: last year
Ahh! I get it now.

Cuttings are a compulsion for me. Whenever visitors come to the garden or to see my bonsai trees, I want to be able to offer them something of a start (starter plant); so whenever I prune off a branch with interesting movement, or the plant I'm working with makes easy to care for bonsai material, it gets propagated - same goes for less common succulents. There's never a shortage of container gardeners willing to add a plant to their collection.

Al

Organics in containers: so many questions!

tapla (mid-Michigan, USDA z5b-6a)

Comments (12)

tapla (mid-Michigan, USDA z5b-6a)

seasiderooftop
Original Author

Related Discussions

Michele Rossi

tapla (mid-Michigan, USDA z5b-6a)

seasiderooftop
Original Author

tapla (mid-Michigan, USDA z5b-6a)

Kimberly Wendt (Florida Z. 10b)

klem1

tapla (mid-Michigan, USDA z5b-6a)

klem1

tapla (mid-Michigan, USDA z5b-6a)

COMPANY

BUSINESS SERVICES

GET HELP

CONNECT WITH US

Organics in containers: so many questions!

Comments (12)

seasiderooftopOriginal Author

Related Discussions

seasiderooftopOriginal Author

COMPANY

BUSINESS SERVICES

GET HELP

CONNECT WITH US

seasiderooftop
Original Author

seasiderooftop
Original Author