Hello.

I have some simple questions about fertilizers.

For the last few days I've spent a lot of time figuring out ideal profiles for fertilizers for indoor tomatoes.

I wrote a program that figures out how to mix seperate fertilizers together to better match your custom fertilizer profile. Which is great (and bloody genius), but..

..figuring out an ideal fertilizer profile for tomatoes is difficult. Lots of info online is contradictory.

Typically, tomato fertilizers on the shelf are 3-2-5.

For instance, Phostrogen Plant Food and Chempak Tomato Food are close to a 3-2-5, have trace elements and seem like great plant foods for tomatoes.

But the fortnightly dose is 516ppm-328ppm-829ppm. So all at once, that concentration is added to the soil. Why isn't that a problem?

(That was the first simple question. Here comes the second.)


Why is it better to feed a plant with emphasis on a particular nutrient?

Isn't the plant going to take what it needs? In other words, if you use a balance fertilizer, say, 6-6-6 at 100ppm, and the plant needs more Potassium, couldn't you just increase the concentration of 6-6-6 to, say, 150ppm instead of changing to a fertilizer that's, say, 6-6-8?

Simply what I'm asking is: does a plant take only what it needs from the soil, or does a plant eat everything it's given?

If the first is true, then we need only use a balanced fertilizer and increase the ppm to suit. If the second is true, then altering the ratio and the ppm would be necessary.

Btw, I know most of you are organic growers. This is just an exercise for me, to figure this out. So please, you don't need to tell me of the evils of non-organic fertilizers.

In article ,
Korleone wrote:

Hello.

I have some simple questions about fertilizers.

For the last few days I've spent a lot of time figuring out ideal
profiles for fertilizers for indoor tomatoes.

I wrote a program that figures out how to mix seperate fertilizers
together to better match your custom fertilizer profile. Which is
great (and bloody genius), but..

.figuring out an ideal fertilizer profile for tomatoes is difficult.
Lots of info online is contradictory.

Typically, tomato fertilizers on the shelf are 3-2-5.

For instance, Phostrogen Plant Food and Chempak Tomato Food are close
to a 3-2-5, have trace elements and seem like great plant foods for
tomatoes.

But the fortnightly dose is 516ppm-328ppm-829ppm. So all at once, that
concentration is added to the soil. Why isn't that a problem?

(That was the first simple question. Here comes the second.)


Why is it better to feed a plant with emphasis on a particular
nutrient?

Isn't the plant going to take what it needs? In other words, if you
use a balance fertilizer, say, 6-6-6 at 100ppm, and the plant needs
more Potassium, couldn't you just increase the concentration of 6-6-6
to, say, 150ppm instead of changing to a fertilizer that's, say, 6-6-8?


Simply what I'm asking is: does a plant take only what it needs from
the soil, or does a plant eat everything it's given?

If the first is true, then we need only use a balanced fertilizer and
increase the ppm to suit. If the second is true, then altering the
ratio and the ppm would be necessary.

Btw, I know most of you are organic growers. This is just an exercise
for me, to figure this out. So please, you don't need to tell me of
the evils of non-organic fertilizers.

Well, then you already know the answer. But why ask a question if you
already know the answer? There can only be one answer for that ;-)
--

Billy
Bush and Pelosi Behind Bars
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KVTf...ef=patrick.net
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0aEo...eature=related

"Korleone" wrote in message
...

Hello.

I have some simple questions about fertilizers.

For the last few days I've spent a lot of time figuring out ideal
profiles for fertilizers for indoor tomatoes.

I wrote a program that figures out how to mix seperate fertilizers
together to better match your custom fertilizer profile. Which is
great (and bloody genius), but..


Why? What is the need for this?

.figuring out an ideal fertilizer profile for tomatoes is difficult.
Lots of info online is contradictory.

Typically, tomato fertilizers on the shelf are 3-2-5.

For instance, Phostrogen Plant Food and Chempak Tomato Food are close
to a 3-2-5, have trace elements and seem like great plant foods for
tomatoes.

But the fortnightly dose is 516ppm-328ppm-829ppm. So all at once, that
concentration is added to the soil. Why isn't that a problem?


Why would it be?

(That was the first simple question. Here comes the second.)


Why is it better to feed a plant with emphasis on a particular
nutrient?


It isn't necessarily. Sometimes it is.

Isn't the plant going to take what it needs? In other words, if you
use a balance fertilizer, say, 6-6-6 at 100ppm, and the plant needs
more Potassium, couldn't you just increase the concentration of 6-6-6
to, say, 150ppm instead of changing to a fertilizer that's, say, 6-6-8?


Simply what I'm asking is: does a plant take only what it needs from
the soil, or does a plant eat everything it's given?

Different plants require different proportions of nutrients. For example
things with lots of green leaves (eg grass) need more nitrogen. Also overdose
can be harmfull and not just at the level that is toxic, for example carrots
grow strange, twisty and bifurcated if over fertilised. The shotgun approach
(hit 'er with some more of everything) is at best wasteful and can be
disasterous.


If the first is true, then we need only use a balanced fertilizer and
increase the ppm to suit. If the second is true, then altering the
ratio and the ppm would be necessary.

Btw, I know most of you are organic growers. This is just an exercise
for me, to figure this out. So please, you don't need to tell me of
the evils of non-organic fertilizers.


One key thing you have left out is the existing nutrients available in the
soil. Plants don't get only what is added as fertilser, nutrients come from
many sources, some plants even have little mates that make nutrients for them.
Also different soils bind nutrients to various degrees. This means there is
no such thing as "ideal" tomato fertiliser or anything else fertilser. And
texture and drainage make a huge difference. And lots more, this matter is
much deeper than it first looks.

Writing your own software is admirable. May I suggest that whatever you write
will be far more useful and you will learn far more from doing it if you
understand the subject matter that you are modelling or work from a
specification written by someone who does. There is much more to good
software than kool kode and a fAnCy iNTerFAce.

David

The question wasn't specific to non-organic methods. It was about plant behaviour generally. If there was only one answer, you didn't have it.

Besides, I've figured it out. Plants are gluttons. They will eat all they can. They can't pick and choose, otherwise there would be no such thing as nute burn. Adjusting NPK ratios and/or ppm is necessary for a nutrient deficiency. Pretty obvious really, but I forgot about overdosing.

Fertilizing can be a difficult thing. You want to give your plants what they need in optimal doses but not too much of a good thing. There's no exact formula to it, but you should be aware of rough guidelines. Listening to the plants is one thing, but knowing how to push your plants to the top of their potential without pushing them over a cliff is another.

The same goes for raising children I suppose. Except you can't eat them(legally).

Well..
If I wanted to experiment with a particular fertilizer profile but it wasn't available commercially I could mix my own using separate fertilizers. Figuring out how to balance them with pen and paper would take a very long time to do accurately. So now, I can take any fertilizers and find out the best possible way to combine them to get the profile I want.

That's not much of an answer. I was asking if it would be a problem. I'm assuming if you dump a large amount of any particular element into the soil, the plant is likely to die, right? So isn't that a large amount all at once?
Yes, you're right. Soil is complex stuff. However, when I say ideal, I don't mean a-cure-for-all-ills fertilizer, just the best ballpark figure for my particular setup.

I want to be able to decide on a great N-P-K-Ca-Mg-S ratio, and then only have to adjust the ppm as the plant grows. I won't be able to use it all of the time of course. I know that. But, I will be able to use it most of the time in a controlled setup.

It's definitely not about interface. Just a bog-standard number cruncher.
It simply figures out the best matching ratios. It’s not about modeling at all, really.
It’s not like I’m building a soil model. That would be completely unnecessary and altogether useless.

In article ,
Korleone wrote:

The question wasn't specific to non-organic methods. It was about plant
behaviour generally. If there was only one answer, you didn't have it.


Besides, I've figured it out. Plants are gluttons. They will eat all
they can. They can't pick and choose, otherwise there would be no such
thing as nute burn. Adjusting NPK ratios and/or ppm is necessary for a
nutrient deficiency. Pretty obvious really, but I forgot about
overdosing.

Fertilizing can be a difficult thing. You want to give your plants
what they need in optimal doses but not too much of a good thing.
There's no exact formula to it, but you should be aware of rough
guidelines. Listening to the plants is one thing, but knowing how to
push your plants to the top of their potential without pushing them
over a cliff is another.

The same goes for raising children I suppose. Except you can't eat
them(legally).

Spunky little ignoramus ain't you?;o)

Learned yourself up on macro-nutrients, eh?, and now you know farming up
to 1930. I hope you do your farming hydroponically and leave the soil
alone. Organic gardening means, "take care of the soil, and the soil
will take care of your plants". But you already knew that, humm?

Well here is the tip of an iceberg for you:
"Harsh chemicals can scorch young leaves, and nitrogen fertilizers
render lettuces more vulnerable to insects. It seems the bugs are
attracted to the free nitrogen in their leaves, and because of the more
rapid growth of chemically nourished plants, insects find their leaves
easier to pierce." - Omnivore's Dilemma, pg. 165.

Your reading list:

Teaming with Microbes: A Gardener's Guide to the Soil Food Web
Jeff Lowenfels and Wayne Lewis
http://www.amazon.com/Teaming-Microb.../dp/0881927775
/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1206815176&sr= 1-1

The Omnivore's Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals by Michael Pollan

http://www.amazon.com/Omnivores-Dile...ls/dp/01430385
83/ref=pd_bbs_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1206815576&sr=1-1

(Not a book) The Worst Mistake In The History Of The Human Race
http://www.environnement.ens.fr/pers..._jared_diamond
..pdf

Keep us appraised of your success ;o)
--

Billy
Bush and Pelosi Behind Bars
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KVTf...ef=patrick.net
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0aEo...eature=related

I'll repeat myself, juuust so we're clear he THIS HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ARGUMENT FOR OR AGAINST ORGANIC METHODS.

I didn't mention once that I was interested in fertilizers that weren't of animal or plant origin. In fact, my question has nothing to do with fertilizers. I asked a simple question on how plants work.

I understand your pedestal must be very comfy, you clearly know everything there is to know about horticulture and you were born with this knowledge and God forbid anyone should know any less.

btw, ... THIS HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ARGUMENT FOR OR AGAINST ORGANIC METHODS.

Just wanted to pop into a nice gardening forum, ask some friendly and simple questions. Friendly. Simple. Yes?

I am actually grateful for the reading list however.

I recommend the following:
http://www.amazon.com/Overcoming-Pas...96034&sr= 1-1

And not available on Amazon, but I recommend you look out for these:
Growing the Dogmatic Way by Yura Duszbahg, and
The Real Wiccan's Guide to Dryhumping Your Opinion Into Every Conversation.

Please don't reply. I really can't be bothered.
And if you do reply, it's sort of, in a way, basically the same as admitting to child abuse. If you think about it.

In article ,
Korleone wrote:

'Billy[_4_ Wrote:
;798051']In article ,
Korleone wrote:
-
The question wasn't specific to non-organic methods. It was about
plant
behaviour generally. If there was only one answer, you didn't have
it.


Besides, I've figured it out. Plants are gluttons. They will eat
all
they can. They can't pick and choose, otherwise there would be no
such
thing as nute burn. Adjusting NPK ratios and/or ppm is necessary for
a
nutrient deficiency. Pretty obvious really, but I forgot about
overdosing.

Fertilizing can be a difficult thing. You want to give your plants
what they need in optimal doses but not too much of a good thing.
There's no exact formula to it, but you should be aware of rough
guidelines. Listening to the plants is one thing, but knowing how to
push your plants to the top of their potential without pushing them
over a cliff is another.

The same goes for raising children I suppose. Except you can't eat
them(legally).-

Spunky little ignoramus ain't you?;o)

Learned yourself up on macro-nutrients, eh?, and now you know farming
up
to 1930. I hope you do your farming hydroponically and leave the soil
alone. Organic gardening means, "take care of the soil, and the soil
will take care of your plants". But you already knew that, humm?

Well here is the tip of an iceberg for you:
"Harsh chemicals can scorch young leaves, and nitrogen fertilizers
render lettuces more vulnerable to insects. It seems the bugs are
attracted to the free nitrogen in their leaves, and because of the more

rapid growth of chemically nourished plants, insects find their leaves

easier to pierce." - Omnivore's Dilemma, pg. 165.

Your reading list:

Teaming with Microbes: A Gardener's Guide to the Soil Food Web
Jeff Lowenfels and Wayne Lewis
http://tinyurl.com/42tp2m
/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1206815176&sr= 1-1

The Omnivore's Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals by Michael
Pollan

http://tinyurl.com/3z76g2
83/ref=pd_bbs_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1206815576&sr=1-1

(Not a book) The Worst Mistake In The History Of The Human Race
http://tinyurl.com/4dgtly
..pdf

Keep us appraised of your success ;o)
--

Billy
Bush and Pelosi Behind Bars
http://tinyurl.com/4ffszx
http://tinyurl.com/4anv4s


I'll repeat myself, juuust so we're clear he THIS HAS ABSOLUTELY
NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ARGUMENT FOR OR AGAINST ORGANIC METHODS.

I didn't mention once that I was interested in fertilizers that weren't
of animal or plant origin. In fact, my question has nothing to do with
fertilizers. I asked a simple question on how plants work.

I understand your pedestal must be very comfy, you clearly know
everything there is to know about horticulture and you were born with
this knowledge and God forbid anyone should know any less.

Organic gardening means, "take care of the soil, and the soil
will take care of your plants"

btw, ... THIS HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ARGUMENT FOR OR
AGAINST ORGANIC METHODS.

Just wanted to pop into a nice gardening forum, ask some friendly and
simple questions. Friendly. Simple. Yes?

I am actually grateful for the reading list however.

I recommend the following:
http://tinyurl.com/3p9kha

And not available on Amazon, but I recommend you look out for these:
Growing the Dogmatic Way by Yura Duszbahg, and
The Real Wiccan's Guide to Dryhumping Your Opinion Into Every
Conversation.

Please don't reply. I really can't be bothered.
And if you do reply, it's sort of, in a way, basically the same as
admitting to child abuse. If you think about it.

This is for the group, not the prima donna who apparently has found time
to take a psychology class. Psychology classes are usually populated
by people who have questions about themselves as sociology classes
are populated by people who have questions about other people.

Naked in his/her ignorance s/he attempts to deflect attention by
misdirection, and then vaunting his/her ignorance, by citing two
nonexistent books. The "Heart of a Lion" (what do you think
psychology students?) is reduced to the timidity of a mouse.
I think we do an excellent job answering honest questions about
gardening. We answer honestly from our hearts, even if we don't
have citations. Why someone would try to abuse our service by
posing as competent, and then framing ill defined questions is
beyond me, even if they are an ignoramus.
--

Billy
Bush and Pelosi Behind Bars
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KVTf...ef=patrick.net
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0aEo...eature=related

"Korleone" wrote in message
...

David Hare-Scott;797991 Wrote:
"Korleone" wrote in message
...-

Hello.

I have some simple questions about fertilizers.

For the last few days I've spent a lot of time figuring out ideal
profiles for fertilizers for indoor tomatoes.

I wrote a program that figures out how to mix separate fertilizers
together to better match your custom fertilizer profile. Which is
great (and bloody genius), but..
-

Why? What is the need for this?


Well..
If I wanted to experiment with a particular fertilizer profile but it
wasn't available commercially I could mix my own using separate
fertilizers. Figuring out how to balance them with pen and paper would
take a very long time to do accurately. So now, I can take any
fertilizers and find out the best possible way to combine them to get
the profile I want.

If you know what the deficiencies of your soil are and the needs of your crop
are element by element and you are going to align the two using only your
custom mix then I can see that your software may be useful. In practice none
of those three conditions are likely to be true.

One key thing you have left out is the existing nutrients available in
the
soil. Plants don't get only what is added as fertilser, nutrients come
from
many sources, some plants even have little mates that make nutrients
for them.
Also different soils bind nutrients to various degrees. This means
there is
no such thing as "ideal" tomato fertiliser or anything else fertilser.
And
texture and drainage make a huge difference. And lots more, this matter
is
much deeper than it first looks.

Yes, you're right. Soil is complex stuff. However, when I say ideal,
I don't mean a-cure-for-all-ills fertilizer, just the best ballpark
figure for my particular setup.

I want to be able to decide on a great N-P-K-Ca-Mg-S ratio, and then
only have to adjust the ppm as the plant grows.

I don't understand. You seem to be talking about two processes, is that
right? What is the first one where you get "great ratio"? How do you
subsequently adjust the "ppm", how would you know what it is at any time? Do
you think that the elemental content of your soil as determined by some assay
method is what is available to the plants?

I won't be able to use
it all of the time of course. I know that. But, I will be able to use
it most of the time in a controlled setup.


Controlled setup? Are we talking hydroponics here? That's rather different.


Writing your own software is admirable. May I suggest that whatever
you write
will be far more useful and you will learn far more from doing it if
you
understand the subject matter that you are modelling or work from a
specification written by someone who does. There is much more to good
software than kool kode and a fAnCy iNTerFAce.



It's definitely not about interface. Just a bog-standard number
cruncher.
It simply figures out the best matching ratios. It's not about
modeling at all, really.

Yes it is by my definition of 'model'.

It's not like I'm building a soil model. That would be completely
unnecessary and altogether useless.


I wasn't hinting that you ought to be modelling soil composition in relation
to growing plants and adding fertiliser in its entirety. However, any
software that supports decision making about a real-world situation is
modelling that situation in some way. It embodies certain data that are
collected out of a much larger conceivable set, it makes simplifying
assumptions, uses selected formulae, produces a set of results out of a much
larger possible set, etc. Modelling is about choosing to deal with a
manageable assembage of what is important to you out of a larger system and
showing (or trusting) that what you ignore will not mess it up too much.

I am suggesting that, for example, you may not have looked carefully at what
your assumptions are and what affect they will have on the real-world
usefulness of your results.

David

Overdosing too much nutrients/minerals into the soil can block the
absorption rate of other nutriets/minerals from the soil. There is an
optimal balance between the ppm of the various & minerals that will
result in the maximum uptake efficiency of the plant.

Also, too high of a concentration can lead to the soil containing
too much dissolved salts, and water then has to come out of the plant
in order to restore the osmotic balance--causing plant burn and
dehydration.

sometime in the recent past Korleone posted this:
Hello.

I have some simple questions about fertilizers.

For the last few days I've spent a lot of time figuring out ideal
profiles for fertilizers for indoor tomatoes.

I wrote a program that figures out how to mix seperate fertilizers
together to better match your custom fertilizer profile. Which is
great (and bloody genius), but..

.figuring out an ideal fertilizer profile for tomatoes is difficult.
Lots of info online is contradictory.

Typically, tomato fertilizers on the shelf are 3-2-5.

For instance, Phostrogen Plant Food and Chempak Tomato Food are close
to a 3-2-5, have trace elements and seem like great plant foods for
tomatoes.

But the fortnightly dose is 516ppm-328ppm-829ppm. So all at once, that
concentration is added to the soil. Why isn't that a problem?

(That was the first simple question. Here comes the second.)


Why is it better to feed a plant with emphasis on a particular
nutrient?

Isn't the plant going to take what it needs? In other words, if you
use a balance fertilizer, say, 6-6-6 at 100ppm, and the plant needs
more Potassium, couldn't you just increase the concentration of 6-6-6
to, say, 150ppm instead of changing to a fertilizer that's, say, 6-6-8?


Simply what I'm asking is: does a plant take only what it needs from
the soil, or does a plant eat everything it's given?

If the first is true, then we need only use a balanced fertilizer and
increase the ppm to suit. If the second is true, then altering the
ratio and the ppm would be necessary.

Btw, I know most of you are organic growers. This is just an exercise
for me, to figure this out. So please, you don't need to tell me of
the evils of non-organic fertilizers.




Not a word on pH. If it isn't right, nutrients can get locked up so they
aren't available to the plant at any ppm. Just 2 cents.

Different plants need different proportions of nutrients. For example, A lot of things with the green leaves need more nitrogen. Also excessive Can be harmful, rather than a toxic level, such as carrots Growth strange twists and fork if more than fertilization.

Different plants crave altered accommodation of nutrients. For archetype things with lots of blooming leaves (eg grass) charge added nitrogen. Also balance can be harmfull and not just at the akin that is toxic, for archetype carrots abound strange, arced and angled if over fertilised.