|
Post by daylilydude on Apr 15, 2012 11:36:22 GMT -5
I have been reading up on muscadines, and it says to spread triple 10 every year, is there something organic that I can use instead and is equivalent too it?
|
|
|
Post by horsea on Apr 15, 2012 13:09:24 GMT -5
I don't even know what muscadines are. Of course, you live in Mississippi, and I live about 1,000 miles to the north.
|
|
|
Post by daylilydude on Apr 15, 2012 13:32:52 GMT -5
Sorry bout that horsea... they are a type of grape.
|
|
|
Post by paquebot on Apr 15, 2012 23:19:53 GMT -5
Just look for any organic fertilizer with a 1-1-1 ratio. Doesn't have to be 10-10-10 but could be 3-3-3. Just have to use it in a different proportion.
Martin
|
|
|
Post by gixxerific on Apr 17, 2012 20:46:35 GMT -5
You really don't have to use organics in different proportions, I.E. making it 10-10-10 worth of product. The reason chemical fertilizers are such higher numbers are they are "right now" fertilizers. They leach (water soluble) into the ground and than the ground water very fast. Where organic fertilizers are slow release they don't leach. The microbes, fungi etc hold onto them and make them even better. Where chemical ferts kill of those beneficial little buggers that make a great garden, great soil and a healthy garden not to mention a happy planet. Instead of using 10-10-10 use something even better, something that has a way more diverse set of micro-nutrients as well like compost-compost-compost!!
|
|
izzy
Pro Member
Posts: 347
Joined: July 2011
|
Post by izzy on Apr 17, 2012 23:05:48 GMT -5
Instead of using 10-10-10 use something even better, something that has a way more diverse set of micro-nutrients as well like compost-compost-compost!! True dat! Also, having the proper ph will allow the microbes to make the most effecient use of nutrients while feeding your plants - with less waste.
|
|
|
Post by gixxerific on Apr 18, 2012 18:35:06 GMT -5
Instead of using 10-10-10 use something even better, something that has a way more diverse set of micro-nutrients as well like compost-compost-compost!! True dat! Also, having the proper ph will allow the microbes to make the most effecient use of nutrients while feeding your plants - with less waste. True dat to dat! Using chemical ferts is a gamble. Sure some times it pay's off, but if you look at you long term record. You still end up loosing in the end. WIth compost and organics and a healthy soil you always win. Chemicals can give you times where too much of something is there which locks up other nutrienat and vice versa. Compost is middle of the road and with a heatly mircobilogy in you soil it is there when it is needed. If done right it balances everything out and you just sit back and relax. Kind of like have a good virus program for you PC, it keeps everything running smoothly. Ask yourself this next time you are out in the woods/forest. Have you ever seen mother nature come by with a disc/culitavator and fertilzer truck? Just my two cents.
|
|
|
Post by paquebot on Apr 21, 2012 21:27:22 GMT -5
You really don't have to use organics in different proportions, I.E. making it 10-10-10 worth of product. The reason chemical fertilizers are such higher numbers are they are "right now" fertilizers. They leach (water soluble) into the ground and than the ground water very fast. Where organic fertilizers are slow release they don't leach. The microbes, fungi etc hold onto them and make them even better. Where chemical ferts kill of those beneficial little buggers that make a great garden, great soil and a healthy garden not to mention a happy planet. I was employed in a fertilizer factory for 11 years with 7 of those as a manufacturing foreman. 10-10-10 does not have to be "right now" and usually is not. Depends upon what was used to get the 10% of each. In fact, 10-10-10 can be formulated using strictly organic material. 12-12-12 or higher would be faster release due to the formula needed to arrive at those percentages. Martin
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Joined: January 1970
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 12, 2012 5:07:50 GMT -5
wow!, a lot of information here..glad I garden the "lasagna" way, I dont have to keep up with all those numbers! lol
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Joined: January 1970
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 12, 2012 9:26:30 GMT -5
If it were me I wouldn't bother with buying fertilizer.I would dig a big planting hole and dump some compost or well rotted poo in it ,then back fill that hole with some of the soil I had dug out mixed with a bit of grit or fine gravel for fast drainage. Then once a year side dress with poo, keeping the poo well away from the the stem of the vine. Me myself thinks, 10 10 10 is far to much fertilizer for a vine,your going to have a lush vine but poor fruit production.
|
|
|
Post by Laura_in_FL on Jun 12, 2012 13:55:38 GMT -5
Actually, muscadines fruit really well on 10-10-10; it's what commercial growers use, right from the year of planting. However, you do have to be careful not to use too much and not to place fertilizer too close to the trunk or you'll burn the plant. Roots of young vines are sensitive, so NO fertilizer in the planting hole.
Muscadines are native to the Southeast U.S. Even though the varieties for sale have been bred for better fruit, they are still pretty adapted to survive under the soil and climate conditions in this area. Unless your soil is really poor, they would produce some with no fertilizer at all. Fertilizing improves production, but they are not that picky about fertilizer. I would bet they would be perfectly happy with any organic fertilizer intended for fruiting plants/fruit trees, or with compost. Don't fertilize after July, so the plant doesn't have young tender growth when winter comes.
I've read in a couple of places that you should not use manure on or near muscadines, but the places I've seen that didn't explain why manure is a problem. Maybe it's an old wives' tale? I do know that muscadines are shallow feeders, so maybe it's easy to burn them with manure? I don't know. But I'd use something else, to be safe.
|
|
|
Post by paquebot on Jun 12, 2012 20:41:02 GMT -5
10-10-10 is not too powerful for anything. If it were, then 1-1-1 would be too powerful or 20-20-20 would be too weak. One pound of 10-10-10 gives the same amount of nutrients as ten pounds of 1-1-1 or two pounds of 5-5-5. It all depends upon how much is used.
Martin
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Joined: January 1970
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2012 13:21:41 GMT -5
Paquebot You sound irritated with me, I didn't mean for that to happen when I posted . But I didn't say ' to powerful", I said "to much" ,I should have said " unnecessary to my way of thinking", that would have been clearer I now see. DLD asked if there was some thing organic he could use with the same equivalency of a 10 10 10 chemical fertilizer , I'm not sure about the equivalency to manure but I know manure has potassium, phosphorus and nitrogen plus micronutrients, in what levels I expect is dependant on what type of manure . Its organic and it improves the structure of the soil I know manure lowers the pH level in soils slightly,maybe that's good for that type of grape hes looking into.
|
|
|
Post by coppice on Jun 13, 2012 16:46:56 GMT -5
When I had Concord's, it was an autumnal application of manure or compost and a thick layer of leaves as mulch.
IMO the real bounty from grape trellis, is the understory plantation of ginseng. I never ever used a numbered fertilizer.
Weekly supplemental water to established grape is also a good thing.
If I have any problem with 10-10-10 it is its ex pence. I'm not sure manure or compost is inherently better. It is cheaper.
|
|
|
Post by paquebot on Jun 13, 2012 23:22:46 GMT -5
Paquebot You sound irritated with me, I didn't mean for that to happen when I posted . But I didn't say ' to powerful", I said "to much" ,I should have said " unnecessary to my way of thinking", that would have been clearer I now see. DLD asked if there was some thing organic he could use with the same equivalency of a 10 10 10 chemical fertilizer , I'm not sure about the equivalency to manure but I know manure has potassium, phosphorus and nitrogen plus micronutrients, in what levels I expect is dependant on what type of manure . Its organic and it improves the structure of the soil I know manure lowers the pH level in soils slightly,maybe that's good for that type of grape hes looking into. Just stating facts since there indeed are people who do not understand that one has to merely reduce the amount of fertilizer used if 5% of something is needed and all that is available is 10%. On another forum, a gardener admitted not knowing that. If there is one person who admits it, one can only assume that there are many more like that person and reply accordingly. In this instance, you now refer to using manures but without knowing the NPK values. Without knowing them, you can not know if they would be a substitute for a manufactured product. You say that one product is too much without advising what the alternative is. You also missed my post stating that 10-10-10 may indeed be formulated from organic sources. Therefore one can not be against any fertilizer merely due to its NPK numbers. Martin
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Joined: January 1970
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2012 13:16:36 GMT -5
Morning Paquebot, I did read all your posts.Its a fact, you know far more about chemical fertilizers than I do .
|
|
|
Post by paquebot on Jun 14, 2012 20:47:11 GMT -5
Morning Paquebot, I did read all your posts.Its a fact, you know far more about chemical fertilizers than I do . You are half correct. I also know far more about all fertilizers, period. I know that one can not apply enough 10-10-10 and can apply too much manure. It's all in the quantity of a certain basic nutrient which is required by a crop. If the recommended rate of a given element is 10 pounds per a given area, then one would need 100 pounds of something containing 10%. If the only available fertilizer was 2%, one would need 500 pounds. If it were a manure with .5%, one would need 2,000 pounds. Difference is 2 bags in the trunk of a car or a pickup truck load. (Math error. It would take 2,000 pounds at .5% to equal 100 pounds at 10%, not 1,000 pounds as initially posted.) Martin
|
|
|
Post by freedhardwoods on Nov 4, 2014 5:48:27 GMT -5
Using chemical ferts is a gamble. Sure some times it pay's off, but if you look at you long term record. You still end up loosing in the end. Most of the older farmers I know have been using chemical fertilizers for over half a century. Most have near record yields this year. When and how are they supposed to lose?
|
|
dirtguy50
Pro Member
My avatar got in trouble for digging in the garden
Posts: 255
Zone:: 6b
Joined: February 2014
|
Post by dirtguy50 on Nov 4, 2014 9:58:57 GMT -5
Cut their chemicals off and their ground will be sterile in one year. IT is not sustainable.
|
|
|
Post by freedhardwoods on Nov 4, 2014 20:45:17 GMT -5
Cut their chemicals off and their ground will be sterile in one year. IT is not sustainable. Saying the ground would be sterile is ridiculous. If you stop using organic or chemical fertilizer yields will drop. Yields have steadily increased since farmers started using chemical fertilizer. That goes above sustainability.
|
|
|
Post by spacecase0 on Nov 4, 2014 21:59:31 GMT -5
this has been tested many times, read this book if you want actual test numbers, archive.org/details/cu31924003695636the big issue with the chemical fertilizers is that they burn up the organic matter faster than if you don't use it the soil bacteria nutrient share with the plants, with less organic matter in the soil you get less bacteria in the soil, many large farms are using organic methods now, and they keep quiet about it, they have no certifications and sell the food on the open market as conventionally farmed, they make lots of money doing this, the other issue with chemical fertilizer is that much of it decays into salt, and that additive effect is already catching up to many farmers same salt issue with irrigation of crops, but not even organic farmers want to talk about that
|
|
|
Post by paquebot on Nov 4, 2014 22:01:01 GMT -5
Sterile may be the wrong word for it but may mean the same as worn out. The first European settlers found that out in a hurry when the rich land they discovered would no longer support any crops. Every gardener who starts his own seeds knows that a sterile medium is best. After germination, fertilizer is added as needed. By sterile, that means no NPK. Take all of the NPK out of a pound of soil or an acre of soil and the results are the same.
Martin
|
|
|
Post by paquebot on Nov 4, 2014 22:21:41 GMT -5
same salt issue with irrigation of crops, but not even organic farmers want to talk about that For the record, about 50% of the salt in the Colorado River in Colorado is from natural sources. When evaporated, as when used in irrigation, the salt percentage increases. In many parts of the West, all well water is alkaline and contains salt. Using too much of that can also build up salt content in soil and still be 100% organic. Martin
|
|
|
Post by spacecase0 on Nov 4, 2014 22:55:57 GMT -5
same salt issue with irrigation of crops, but not even organic farmers want to talk about that For the record, about 50% of the salt in the Colorado River in Colorado is from natural sources. When evaporated, as when used in irrigation, the salt percentage increases. In many parts of the West, all well water is alkaline and contains salt. Using too much of that can also build up salt content in soil and still be 100% organic. Martin yes it is organic, no question there, but plants don't grow well when the fields are salted here is a book about how salt affects the crops, naldc.nal.usda.gov/download/CAT87209914/PDF (PDF download) many fields in CA are only a few years away from not being able to grow anything but barley, not that we should not be eating beer for food, it is just that there are dry farming methods that are totally sustainable that we could be using, and at some point the salt issue will catch up to use just like the chemical fertilizer issue is already hurting lots of farms, only the salt issue is lots harder to fix
|
|
|
Post by paquebot on Nov 5, 2014 15:15:45 GMT -5
The salt problem and fertilizer connection is a myth. There are no fertilizers which contain NaCl/salt. The salt problem connected with farming comes from the water. It's a Catch 22 situation for farmers in the West. They must rely on irrigation to grow their crops and that water contains salt. More water must be used to counter the salt buildup which then results in a higher salt concentration. For most, snow is their only source of acidic water which then drains into rivers which are also fed by alkaline springs. By the time it gets to where as farmer can use it, it's salty. When it can't move, it evaporates leaving its salt behind. The effect is the same no matter if fertilizer is used or not. The Great Salt Lake became so from eons of fresh water flowing into it via 3 rivers whose water contains a certain percentage of salt. Being shallow and with no outlet, the waters evaporate and salt and minerals remain. Farm irrigation systems usually are a one-way route to a deadend. Same natural effects as the Great Salt Lake must be expected.
Martin
|
|
|
Post by spacecase0 on Nov 5, 2014 15:37:58 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by paquebot on Nov 6, 2014 19:18:32 GMT -5
The salt which is affecting irrigated lands in the West is not potassium but the same salt which ends up in the Great Salt Lake in Utah or the Salton Sea in California. Potassium does not come in via the water like common salt does. Blaming potassium for that is just another example of the false information which one can find on any topic on the Internet. Were potassium a problem, the entire state of Iowa would have become a wasteland long ago. Plants are able to use potassium and no farmer would have to use a drop of it if there were an excess. A number of other garden nutrition supplements exist in salt form but none result in a lethal concentration like sodium chloride. I know of no fertilizer ingredients which would contain even a trace of sodium chloride unless it came unprocessed directly from the sea. Certain nitrogen solutions will turn to salts when the temperature drops to a certain point and become a safe organic product. Magnesium sulfate is another common soil supplement sold and used as a salt. One must know what they're dealing with before tarring them all with the same brush.
Martin
|
|
|
Post by spacecase0 on Nov 6, 2014 19:58:34 GMT -5
I see what you are saying,
I just add up the osmotic pressure of all the salts in the soil not matter what they are, the effects are additive.
|
|
swamper
Pro Member
Posts: 208
Joined: March 2011
|
Post by swamper on Nov 7, 2014 7:02:50 GMT -5
|
|
swamper
Pro Member
Posts: 208
Joined: March 2011
|
Post by swamper on Nov 7, 2014 7:26:31 GMT -5
|
|