There's nothing wrong with that. Compost is not added to feed, but rather, to help retain nutrients in the soil/mix. Compost can be added with no regard to NPK values. (although care should be taken not to introduce salts, pesticides, or anything else that may have been present prior to composting)
-
Do you need help identifying a 🌶?
Is your plant suffering from an unknown issue? 🤧
Then ask in Identification and Diagnosis.
NPK ratio?
- Thread starter Josh
- Start date
Powelly said:
Seeing that I'm supplying more than 3X less Potassium than what you're floating, it most certainly would mean that every plant in my garden would be functionally deficient. Unless you think that I'm dosing everything else in high enough numbers to overcome the K shortfall. (which I most certainly am not)
.
At the very least, the plants that I grew last season with nothing but 3-1-2 disagree with your chart.
.
I'm just wondering if you have done any side by side grows to validate your chart? I've been through the gamut of strategies for growing, so I have a very definite reason for the strength of my position...
solid7 said:
The chart is nutrient uptake ratios
If you're supplying adequate levels of everything, doesn't matter what the ratio is
For example a plant needs a hypothetical "10 parts" of nitrogen, potassium and phosphorus. This is just an example to illustrate a point. You can supply 30/10/20 or 10/50/15 or any other ratio of nutrients and it won't matter
The ratio is irrelevant.
Powelly said:
Dude... just stop. If I - in order to supply a full strength dosing - have to supply 3X the amount of inorganic nitrogen to achieve what that chart says that I need to supply in terms of potassium - because it can't uptake what isn't available - I'm gonna have a problem. So yeah, the ratios are relevant. The idea is to shoot for as close to what is required, as possible. Otherwise, if you prefer a scattergun approach to fertilizing, that's your business. I feed all year round, so it does make a difference. (accumulation) That aside, some fertilizers are expensive, and keeping close to the mark is important.
.
You don't need to tell me how it breaks down. I understand fully the difference between absolute and relative numbers.
.
Just for arguments sake, what would you say about a fert that was 30-10-20 ?
You say "nothing but" 3-1-2, which maybe slightly misleading to some.
Just because its a lowly 3-1-2 it does not mean its weak as the amount reccomended to mix per liter may be 3 times as much as my Nitrosol, which is 9-3-6 so they are in fact the same ratio.
Same as the 30-10-20. Its the same as the 3-1-2, and is the same as the 9-3-6 its just more concentrated so would specify a more diluted mix ratio.
The 30-10-20 probably just has you mix 10x less per litre/ measure as the 3-1-2.
The thing about even ratio ferts e.g. 10.10.10, is that you have a higher chance of nutrients locking each other out, as there may end up being an excess of certain nutrients left in the soil prior to application of the next round of fert.
What 3-1-2, or 9-3-6, or 30-10-20 etc ratio ferts attempts to do, in theory, is that it attempts to replace lost nutrients at the same ratio that they are removed from the soil.
This in theory leads to maximum availability of nutrients, as there is less chance that something will lock something else out as nothing should be building up in the soil; as your attempting to replace nutes at the same ratio which they are removed.
You say "nothing but" 3-1-2, which maybe slightly misleading to some.
Just because its a lowly 3-1-2 it does not mean its weak as the amount reccomended to mix per liter may be 3 times as much as my Nitrosol, which is 9-3-6 so they are in fact the same ratio.
Same as the 30-10-20. Its the same as the 3-1-2, and is the same as the 9-3-6 its just more concentrated so would specify a more diluted mix ratio.
The 30-10-20 probably just has you mix 10x less per litre/ measure as the 3-1-2.
The thing about even ratio ferts e.g. 10.10.10, is that you have a higher chance of nutrients locking each other out, as there may end up being an excess of certain nutrients left in the soil prior to application of the next round of fert.
What 3-1-2, or 9-3-6, or 30-10-20 etc ratio ferts attempts to do, in theory, is that it attempts to replace lost nutrients at the same ratio that they are removed from the soil.
This in theory leads to maximum availability of nutrients, as there is less chance that something will lock something else out as nothing should be building up in the soil; as your attempting to replace nutes at the same ratio which they are removed.
Powelly said:
.
No, I'm not. If I were confused in that regard, it would be the Y axis that correlates digits. And honestly, I don't believe your graph. I read their study, and if memory serves, they didn't specify if they were measuring uptake, or just soil samples. This data was taken against in-ground plantings.
.
Here's what I have experimented with:
.
1) organics
2) high phosphorus (picked up "Nectar of the Gods" product line last season - waste of time)
3) bloom boosters (CNS17 Bloom, Alaska Fish MorBloom, NOTG, etc)
4) CNS17 grow only
5) fish (Alaska Fish emulsion and Neptune's Harvest Tomato and Veg)
6) dry fertilizers (Dr. Earth Tomato and Herb)
.
Of everything listed, the best peppers start to finish, were fed with Alaska Fish 5-1-1 fish emulsion. Cheapest of the lot, too. They got aphid-y as fuck, but still produced the best plants. Next best were CNS17 Grow (3-1-2), followed Dr Earth. My organically amended plants grew the slowest of the lot. (but ended up being some of the nicest plants)
.
In short... If peppers need 2.5-3X more K than N, then I'm doing something very wrong!
Had to bump this again because the Alaska 4-6-6 vegetable and tomato is doing well. The cukes and tomatoes love it and every plant i added it to showed improvement rather quickly. We had several days of rain in the forecast so all of them got a handful just before it arrived yesterday.
Cukes sprouted and fed MG All purpose
Cukes sprouted with Alaska vegetable and tomato when seeded
I forgot to mention, these cukes are about 9-10 days old after they popped out.
Cukes sprouted and fed MG All purpose
Cukes sprouted with Alaska vegetable and tomato when seeded
I forgot to mention, these cukes are about 9-10 days old after they popped out.
Hey I just thought I would connect this thread to a discussion going on in Hot Pepper Talk
A paper came out a few months ago that was looking into fertility regimens for capsicum production, and the treatment with the greatest pungency was fertilized with no potassium or phosphorus.
I'm not going to be doing it to my garden because I want a lot of pods, but its something to keep in mind. I wonder if there might be some confounding there, less pods might always equal hotter peppers?
Here's the paper uploaded by U)<now
A paper came out a few months ago that was looking into fertility regimens for capsicum production, and the treatment with the greatest pungency was fertilized with no potassium or phosphorus.
I'm not going to be doing it to my garden because I want a lot of pods, but its something to keep in mind. I wonder if there might be some confounding there, less pods might always equal hotter peppers?
Here's the paper uploaded by U)<now
Powelly said:
Like you told me in another thread... You need to start listening better, instead of just jumping to formulate your next reply.
.
If it were up to me, that product wouldn't even exist. But because it does, and because people aren't going to accept my preferred methods as absolute, then it's a very viable option. It's a proven ratio. It's a good product. And it is mindlessly simple.
.
But make no mistake... I've NEVER said that it's the best product out there. It's just the best for a specific application.