Brooklyn1 wrote:
Higgs Boson wrote:

Anybody use these for roses and/or other plants, both ornamental and
edible?

I have "regular" rose and other foods in granular form. Was just
about to apply & thought I'd try the spikes.

Just curious if those spikes deliver on their promise to supply long-
lasting food to roots.

I don't think they'ed work well for roses and other small shallow
rooted plants but they work very well for large deep rooted plants
like trees. A few of those large spikes pounded in around a tree's
drip line gives very noticable results and over a long time (years),
whereas surface fertilizing does virtually nothing for trees. In any
event don't over fertilize or you'll do more harm than good. Plants
don't need much fertilizer if any, they receive most of their energy
via photosynthesis.

You are confusing the beginners by once again being partly right and partly
wrong.

Plants don't get any energy from soil nutients they get it all from
photosynthesis. They get minerals from the soil and it silly to generalise
about plants not needing much because of the very wide range of
requirements. Try growing a heavy feeding annual (eg corn) in the same
place year after year without replacing the minerals they take up and you
will see your yield decline markedly as the soil fertility declines due to
lack of nutrients. It would be better to say that one should make the rate
of application of fertiliser suit the circumstances, at least you got one
thing right, that excess can be worse than too little.

I just consulted my stars for the week in the local paper and they said the
response to this post would be strong on invective and weak on facts. Let's
see if astrology works.

D