Fertilizer - What, When, Why, And How Often

doody

From what I have gathered so far, this is a conflicting topic. So I am sorry if I am starting a battle of the wits, but the doody must be on top of things. In the last few month I have come up with a plan for fertilizing my trees. I forget what was the reason I came about this plan, but it had something to do with what a tree needs in what season. Here's my plan SPRING MiracleGro 20-20-20 / SUMMER MiracleGro 20-20-20 / FALL Fish emulsion 5-1-1 WINTER something organic at 0-10-10 (any suggestions). Spring, summer, and fall would be fed every two weeks, but in winter only once a month.
Well, I just read this post at the gardenweb and it kind of tells me that my plan is useless. Here is the post. It makes sence to me, but let me know what you think.

__________________
"What we see depends mainly on what we look for", because "Creation and art are defined only by the boundaries we confine ourselves"

both quotes written by authors unknown

Advertisement

Carl_Bergstrom

Well, I'm no fertilizer expert so take everything I write with a grain of urea salt but...

If the nitrogen's there but the tree doesn't want it, it won't use it, just as trees in nature change their uptake of certain salts, minerals and trace elements throughout the season automatically.

Err...unless, of course, the nitrogen forms poisonous salts that kill the roots, as supposedly is the case for nitrate nitrogen sources (a large fraction of the nitrogren in many chemical fertilizers) on the roots of azaleas.

And, dare I say it, how do you know that for sure, unless you can converse with your trees?


Perhaps because in October your tree just lost its leaves and you know enough kindergarden botany to know that the tree won't be making new ones until next spring?

(Oh, by the way, people tell me that one can do better than using Miracle Gro 20-20-20, e.g. using something like DynaGrow 10-10-10, but I don't have hard evidence to prove it. Also, why not mix the fish emulsion treatments in with the other treatments throughout the spring and summer?)

-OMC

__________________
In love with trees

doody

Well, that makes sence Old MC. I am confused as to how
DynaGro 10-10-10 is better than MiricalGro 20-20-20. I don't know much but I do know that 20 is more than 10, but I also know that less is sometimes more? ( I lost track of what My point is)
Also, you suggest useing fish emulsion along with my regular fertilizer during the spring and summer months. What are the benifits of doing so, and caould I use my regular fertilizer one week and the fish emulsion the next?

__________________
"What we see depends mainly on what we look for", because "Creation and art are defined only by the boundaries we confine ourselves"

both quotes written by authors unknown

Carl_Bergstrom

The honest answer is something along the likes of

"The heck if I know."

The more speculative albeit more detailed answer would be

DynaGro is claimed to be better than MiracleGro because the various nutrients are in forms that can be more easily and better metabolised by the plant. Whatever that means. What I do know is that the nitrogen can be in chemical different forms and different sorts of plants do better with different types. I don't have any hard data on this.

Supposedly the advantage of the fish sauce (as I call it) is that as an organic, it promotes the growth of beneficial microbial organisms in the soil and the likes. And, it smells so damn awful that it's got to be good. As for alternating, why not? That's what I do. Right now I'm alternating between full-strength fish sauce one week and full-strength DynaGro the next. But I really can't say from first hand observation whether this is better than any other approach. What I can say is that it's a lot better than not fertilizing at all.

Hopefully some of those more knowledgable horticulturalists who I know read this board will chime in here.

All the best,
OMC

__________________
In love with trees

bonsaial1

OMC is right when he says how can we know what a plant can and can't use since it can't talk to you anyway. Bonsainut alluded to that adage about plants taking in only what they use. I don't know about that. I think plants are not that much different than humans when it comes to matabolism. I think if the fertilizer is there , the plant may take it in, and metabolize the rest away some how. I know that the plant will grow due to the fertilizer, if the plant grows, then pound for pound the plant should be able to metabolize more fertilizer. I know we must be talking micro measurements here, but it makes sense to me. If you don't change the amounts or feedings, you may be shorting the plant. By pushing too much chemical fertilizer, I think you would run the risk of burning the plant just like a kick of pure cocain to a user. I think that organic fertilizer seems to be metabolized out of the plant more than chemical fertilizers.

The big story on miracle grow was, a year or so ago the company started to use cheaper urea,( the main componet of the fertilizer and the source for nitrogen) which would cause your plants to possibly get burned more. The talk was on Garden web as well as the IBC. I switched to dyna-gro for that reason. Why take the chance. I also noticed a marked improvement with the Dyna-gro, go figure?

Soildoc

The plant doesn't care what form the fertilizer is in when we add it to the soil. It will only take up the inorganic forms (i.e. ammonium NH4, nitrate NO3, phosphate H2PO4, potassium K) The advantage of using inorganic forms of fertilizer it that it is immediately available to the plant. The disadvantage is that too much will "burn" the plant. The advantage of organic forms is that they must convert to inorganic forms before they can be taken up by the plant. This is a slower process so you get a slow steady stream of fertilizer to the plant over time. The disadvantage is that you don't get an immediate charge of fertilizer like you do with the inorganic.

As far as the 10-10-10 vs 20-20-20 question goes, the 20-20-20 has more fertilizer per unit volume that the 10-10-10 but as Al mentioned, it may be in different forms that are more or less readily available to the plant.

Bonsainut

Doody,

Soil Doc puts it well about the chemicals and all. I am a big pusher of an all organic feeding for bonsai.
But, there is a difference that goes deeper than just speed of nitrogen delivery. It is soil health. The well fertilized and "miracle grown" bonsai pot of soil is salty, sterile, and used up in a year or so.
The same soil with an organic program is full of activity and beneficial insects and looks healthy. You can and need to change the top layer of soil each year and tidy up but you can stretch out soil replacing by a year or two.
I've experimented with this for 12 years now and am convinced. The Japanese have experimented for 800 years and have come to the same conclusion.

It is hard to resist the quick greening of the "miracles" and the slick advertising. No one is gonna make a quick buck by promoting Fish and oil dregs...

doody

Bonsainut, I have'nt yet seen a program that is completely organic. Can you give me an example, or even some links?

__________________
"What we see depends mainly on what we look for", because "Creation and art are defined only by the boundaries we confine ourselves"

both quotes written by authors unknown

TreeBay

Do a search here on "backyard stinks" Al had an article on that 2 months back.

Regards,

Matt

__________________

Want to be a seller on bonsaiAUCTIONS? Get authorized today!

bonsaiTALK: Over 100,005.36 Megabytes Served this Month!