The product has some potential in that someone has given thought to its formulation with regards to the needs of the plant. I would not get caught up with the myco additives as we cannot guarantee their colonization or benefit. So, we need to focus on the ingredients, not just the ratios, but the source or the N-P-K.

The idea that this forumulation may have extra calicum added is one that further makes me feel it has potential. We would like to see at lest a 6% calcium in our maple fertilizers. Other good fertilizer sources of Calcium seem to be vegetable fertilizers and azelea/rhododendron fertilizers as they are acid mixes and are using the calcium for the same purposes. I found a 8-12-8 Rhododendron fertilizer with 8% calcium from Master Nursery but it has gypsum in it which is somewhat undesireable for its potential to lower the soil pH futher than I would like.

So, with that said, if the Fox Farm product is has 2-8 N, 10-12 P, and 2-8 K, then I think we could be in business. You other option is that many hydroponics stores carry the Fox Farm line and if you have one close by, we have 3 of 4 nearby here, they might be able to special order it for you.

Organic does not mean better or safer as it still contains nitrogen and we can still get carried away. I used some of thier porducts last year and still got a bit carried away, pushing too much soft growth late in the summer and fall. I really feel that if we are to fertilze our maples a dose of a product like the ones were are talking about early in the spring is best. If we get some experience under our belt, maybe a dose in the early summer to protect from heat, but in both cases the immediate release fertilizers with low nitrogen content seem to represent the best option.

I will look for the actual contents of the Japanese Maple Product so we can furter discuss it. If you or someone else can get it, it would be great to post it here, as it might take me a day or two or three with my current schedule. You might contact Fox Farm again as I would think they would want their product recommended here--maybe they can give you the specs.

MJH

MJH, thank you very much. I have emailed Fox Farm again (foxfarm@foxfarmfertilizer.com) requesting the N-P-K ratio and referencing this link. I will post back as soon as they reply.

It occured to me that the ratios must be on the Humboldt website somewhere since that's pretty basic info. Sure enough, went back and right in front of me: 4-8-5.
Here's the url for the product on Huboldt:
http://humboldtorganics.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=61&osCsid=e8d4ba2e6553eb100be5d672111090f5

Good going. Now all we need are the actual ingredients.

Hello, dsb and mjh-

I was looking into organic fertilizers myself here, particularly as an alternative to the high nitrogen formulas of most brands I could find. I guess one question would be how the slow or continuous release advertised for these organic ferts compares to the slow release osmocote type in the traditional market. Also, Mjh, when you say we need to find out about the ingredients, what would we have to look out for - animal origin?

(I have read that mycorrhizae cannot really play a role in containers.)

Thanks for any thoughts.

I do NOT put myself forth as an expert on this but don't feel "organic" has Much to do with anything ...unless you have philosophical reasons NOT to use non organic. The amount of nutrients is the important factor... You are not gonna eat the maple or is the fertilizer likely to spread to other areas of growing where you do eatables ( if that's a problem for you)...Basically using the word organic allows them to charge more for something that is probably no differnt in effectiveness as non organic time release fertilizer when used as directed...Just my thoughts

There is a significant difference between organic fertilizers and those from synthetic sources, primarily in how they are accessed by the plant. Organics, from naturally occurring plant or animal sources, require the intervention of soil organisms to break them down into forms accessible to the plant roots. This results in a healthier, bioactive soil as well as making the nutrients available over an extended period of time, allowing the plant to absorb them as needed.

Synthetic ferts, primarily petrochemical in origin, are highly soluble and tend to be immediately available (unless prilled or treated to be slow release), resulting in fast but unsustained results. They do not require the same microorganic activity and therefore add nothing to soil quality and if used regularly, can deplete the soil of very beneficial bioorganisms. They also tend to be salt based, which organics are not, which can result in salt build-ups, particularly in containerized plants.

An awkward but nonetheless valid analogy can be made to a high calorie, high energy junk food diet (synthetics) compared to the more nutritious and sustaining diet of mom's home cooking (organics).

An argument can be made that in containerized plants these distinctions are subtle and that the need to promote a healthy and bioactive soil is far less necessary than with an in-ground situation. OTOH, the need for more frequent fertilizing with plants in containers should give pause as to what presentation of nutrients will provide the best performance. I am of the opinion that a natural product provides equally positive results as well as eliminating the build up of salts and providing increased natural disease suppression. But that is just my opinion based on my studies and experience.

I have received samples of Peace of Mind's JM fertilizer and I have been quite satisfied with the results. I also use Dr. Earth products, which are very similar in formulation, although they do not have a JM specific blend.

FWIW, a good number of growers of containerized JM's have begun to innoculate their soils with miccorhizae, as they realize the benefits of this symbiosis are not limited to in-ground plantings.

I will second gardengal about the process needed to break down organic fertilizers to make the nutrients available to the plant: this is a very positive characteristic because it does provide a more consistent supply of nutrients to the plant as a slower rate. But even more positive than that, is that it will minimize the harmful salt build up that we see with inorganics. The salt byproducts of inorganic fertilizers burn root systems and thereby foliage and are a constant problem for container growers in warmer climates. If we know how and when to apply the inorganics we can minimize salt build up, but we often fight our water supply too. So, if we can use a well forumulated organic fertilizer, there is hope that it will be a superior porduct for our long-term maple projects.

schusch,

What I meant by wanting to see the ingredients is that we need to know what the source of nitrogen is. It is nice to know what it immediately available vs. bound. We also want to know what micros might be in the mix. Does it contain Sulfer, which is important and do we get some other macros and micro like Fe, Mg, Mn. Most organics seem to contain bone meal so that will probably be a give.

As for the myco additives, for me they will be problematic as anytime the soil temps get over 80 degrees, we will begin to lose the fungal colonies. In a controlled greenhouse environment or in a cooler climate, they can help, but they are of litte use here. In the ground, our heavy clay soils are also not well suited for colonization.

MJH

The fact that the breakdown rate was slower - and I supposed less aggressive for the roots - was what made me think about opting for organic ferts - this particularly after the warnings against too much nitrogen that I got at the other forum from you, mjh, and mr shep, and a few others.

Gardengal- to second what you are writing, and I remember briefly discussing this with mjh, Esveld the Dutch maple specialist have opted for entirely ecologically sound growing for all their maples - this to minimize diseases, etc, that also come as a result of too heavy fertilization. (In the meanhwile I also heard that they stopped using any (?) or too much fungicites, as a result. The use of fongicites made me wonder whether if I buy a maple from a grower who sprays a lot, and if I don't, whether the maple could withstand fungi on its own.)

Here is a link, if it's of interest http://www.esveld.nl/eme.html. they use 'effective microorganisms'. there is a reference to the firm that supplies them, with texts in English. This seems to be a comprehensive system that also acts on soil make up, to make soil slowly more fertile through the use of these microorganisms, and rely less and less on chem. ferts.

I have not figured out how this would effect container growing where you repot a lot.

I understand that the figures given on organic ferts - here 4-8-5 - indicate the ratio that's immediately available, then there is another continuous release?

Hi, I've received a response from Fox Farm to my request for a list of ingredients: "Japanese Maple Fertilizer is derived from: feather meal, bone meal, sulfate of potash magnesia, cottonseed meal, bat guano, rock phosphate, kelp meal, and gypsum. It also contains 19 species of Mycorrhizae and Bacillus and Humic acid for faster facilitation of nutrient uptake."

Can you tell which of these is the source(s) of the nitrogen and is sulfate of potash magnesia equvalent to sulfer?

The woman who responded was Heather Colburn, Sales Coordinator, 707-826-1991 (office)
hcolburn (at) foxfarmfertilizer.com

Feather meal is generally 11-0-0 or 12-0-0
Bone Meal 3-15-0 (Fish bone meal 3-18-0), also a calcium source
Bat guano 10-3-1
Cottonseed Meal 5-2-1 and a natural acidifier
sul-po-mag is supplying sulfur, potassium and magnesium
gypsum is supplying calcium
rock phosphate is supplying phosphorus
kelp meal is also a source of potash as well as supplying an array of trace elements, vitamins, hormones and growth stimulants

Sounds like a pretty well-rounded formulation.

+1 for gardengal48's recipe

Selection of a fertilizer, using either organic or synthetic source products needs to at least be based on a soil test to be at all effectively targeted. A product such as the above with all sorts of things in it is highly unlikely to be well matched to any particular soil's need for supplementation--if that soil even has a limiting deficiency.

Soils vary, even on the same property. Different soils have different nutrient levels. Buying and applying products that contain unneeded nutrients is a waste of time and money at best, can produce a toxicity.

Applying a complete product in moderation based on plant growth and appearance can be just as useful as appling a limited or specific fertilizer after a soil test. The money wasted on a complete fertilizer, a few dollars more than a specificly formualted fertilzer, is nothing compared to the expense of repeated and frequent soil test for all different potting mediums and planting sites.

For the purpose of young maples in a pot (small or unestablished rootsystems), if we use a proven soil mix, we can leave our plant in a pot for a season and fertilize the second year and subsequent years until repotting again. More mature maples, 5-7 years old, with at least soil 1gal root systems, we can repot and fertilize lightly the frist year or wait until the second year. It would be ideal to see out maples in at least 5 gallon cans before we fertilize, but using a light application before then is sometimes o.k. if we have visual appearance to back us up. Fertilizing early in the plants' life to push more growth is also an option, but that will not be best for the long term survial. For plants in the ground, after the 3rd year we can start to fertilize some in the spring, but there are other plans that work well.

If we know our plants and planting conditions and watch closely, we can get the same results with fertilizers without harming the plant--soil test or not. Now, if I was going to plant a small orchard or grapes or some other agronomic crop, or even a large lawn, maybe I would want a soil test. Sorry, most of us will not go the the expense.

Fertilize lightly and adjust the type and amount and application time for results. Freshly potted and planted trees should have little need for fertilizers. Give them a year or two then decide what to do.

MJH

Then there is the matter of the water pollution generated by unneeded fertilization. I do not think testing at least once so you have some sort of general idea where you are at is overkill. In my area it has been stated that prevailing conditions indicate only some N may be needed on most sites. The quantities of other nutrients poured on home gardens via complete fertilizers and other inappropriate formulations are probably quite substantial.

The question then begs to be asked: What good is that one $50 soil test when I use 3 or 4 different potting mediums and have 2.5 acres of terraced gardens and home orchard with soil ranging from the prevailing clay to trucked in decomposed granite/sand and topsoil. It is just $50 down the drain and I have gained nothing from it.

I agree that soil analysis is or could be quite valuable, but it is just as costly and wasteful as poor and excess fertilizing practices. Environment or not, I am sure the acres or pear orchards 1/4 mile up the road create far more toxic run-off than I can ever imagine creating. Lets be real. Anyone with the cash and desire to get a soil analysis--please to so, it is the best option, but the rest of us are tired of hearing "get a soil test" as the standard answer for every fertilizer-related question. Everyone should probably invest in a pH meter long before worring about soil analysis.

MJH

Hello, everyone.

I have a question regarding nitrogen fixing by certain soil components, and how it influences organic fertilization.

I am trying to develop a better soil for my potted maples, and have found as a component (in addition to pine bark pieces, and perlite) a mix of composted bark, wood chaff, cocofiber and cocopeat plus low initial organic fertilization. I chose the product to avoid peat, and because it uses very little initial fertilization - it's a mix for growers, and not especially meant for the 'end user'. I talked to a couple of representatives from the firm and two growers who use that particular product.

The reps in particular mentioned that I needed to take into account the nitrogen deficit that occurs with the coco products contained. This, plus the low initial fertilization seemed fine to me. They mentioned for instance 'horn meal' meaning, I guess, parts of ground cow horns, for additional nitrogen. (Is this the same as bone meal?) Now since they were so adamant about this, I'd like to find out what I need to do, or worry about, if anything. I plan to fertilize these maples that are about 5-7 years old once the leaves are about 70% out, in May and only then.

I was thinking about may be trying the product you mention above, as well as non organic fertilizers on other maples.

Do I need to add anything when I repot now because of this issue? As I said, I was not planning to do this. If I need to add a little more nitrogen to compensate later, how much?

The product has an initial low organic fertilization, like this :
N 50 - 110 mg / l
P 30 - 70 mg / l
K 460 - 700 mg / l
PH: 6-6.8
Salt: 0.4-0.8g/l

Thanks for any input.

schusch

PS: I know these indications are in grams and liters, but since recalculating would imply me knowing how these indications are listed in North America, I thought I'd leave it as is.

How is fertilizing acres without any idea what a soil analysis might indicate smarter and more econimical than having a test done? If you have a large and diverse situation you should be doing multiple testing, not dismissing the procedure. The nutrient situation on the same soil can even vary seasonally. Soil testing is repeatedly recommended because it is what is repeatedly called for.

Annual application of a moderate amount (as per product label) of organic fertilizer is hardly the same as repeated applications of a synthetic fertilizer. One of the great benefits of going organic with respect to fertilization is that the components of blended fertilizers are substanially organic matter in content and not too far removed from applying a soil amendment or form of compost. They tend not to leach and encourage the populations of soil organisms in much the same way compost does. Like Mike, I would tend to be more concerned regarding appropriate pH levels as opposed to nutrient levels but would be hardpressed to consider the occasional application of an organic Japanese maple fertilizer inappropriate or unnecessary. While I tend not to fertilize established trees in the ground as they seldom require it and they do get topdressed regularly with compost, I do fertilize containerized plants on a consistent basis.