Greensand can't hold water? Um care to test that one out? The small particle size is sure to hold water due to surface tension regardless of whether there are internal pores or whatnot. Try the cup test where you add a known amount of water to a cup of greensand. Then pour or drain the water out and measure the volume. I guarantee it will be less then you poured in.

"If you mixed rock dust and a bit of greensand down with, say, vermiculite and topsoil, the only nutrient you would ever need to add is N and the fertility of the rock dust will far outlive you, your children, grandchildren, and so on probably as far as you could imagine. You could grow plants in the same potting soil virtually forever in human terms. Compared to chemical fertilizers I'd say that's pretty cost effective and low maintenance."

Sounds too go to be true...

Sounds easy to test.

As greenman said- This is a container forum.

"plants CAN "tell the difference" between chemical fertilizers and 'natural' fertilizers. In nature, nutrients are almost NEVER in "soluble, elemental form", but rather bound either in organic humus complexes or bound in rock material as in the case of rock dust. Plants grown with chemical fertilizers develop atrophied roots that lead to an inability to effectively absorb micronutrients, not to mention the higher leaching rates and soil acidification that does not occur with 'natural' ferts. Crops grown with chemical fertilizers often do display different growth characteristics; grains for example grow unnaturally tall with chemical ferts. "

This may help understand why organic crops taste different...

"Organic solutions can be more complex in terms of the array of substances and organisms they contain when compared to standard synthetic fertilizer solutions. As a result, the plants have more variety in their diet which they can utilize, possibly resulting in more complex tastes, etc. Now, that was one of the upsides of organics. One of the drawbacks of organic crop production vs. standard hydroponic fertilizer is that the majority of nutrients are not immediately available to the plant. This makes it very difficult to monitor and regulate concentration and ratios of elements available to the plant. If using premium hydroponic fertilizers, the vast majority of nutrients are immediately available in precise and measurable values. As a result, healthy vigorous plants can reach their genetic potential which includes characteristics such as taste and flavor. Plants do not differentiate the nutrients they absorb resulting from hydroponic or organic nutrient solutions. For example, nitrogen is typically available as NO3- or NH4+. It does not matter to the plant whether it came from guano or bottled nutrient.

With that said, there are some advantages to supplementing your current hydroponic nutrient regimen with an organic based product. There are an array of products on the market that take advantage of compost teas and the complex array of substances and beneficial life they may contain. Many organic based products are fortified with other compounds which include complex and simple sugars, amino acids, phyto-hormones, vitamins, minerals, etc."

Source: http://www.simplyhydro.com/do_organics_taste_better.htm

Just because something appears in print does not mean that it is true. Or worth quoting.

Only difference between nitrate (or other mineral ions) supplied organically and inorganically is the dosing, in other words, how much and over what duration. That said, what could possibly be the advantage of using an organic based product in container culture, or hydro for that matter?

Or more accurately I should have said "what would be the advantage of an organic over inorganic fertilizer applied in the right amount at appropriate intervals?" That is, considering the lack of control inherent in the use of organics.

Did you even read my post?

I am against organics....

I did read it, did you? If you are "against" organics, then why are you are citing a retailer's website plugging the purported advantages of organic supplements (in other words, the last paragraph). The thought process is not clear in this case.

It is science.

Did you miss?-

"One of the drawbacks of organic crop production vs. standard hydroponic fertilizer is that the majority of nutrients are not immediately available to the plant. This makes it very difficult to monitor and regulate concentration and ratios of elements available to the plant. If using premium hydroponic fertilizers, the vast majority of nutrients are immediately available in precise and measurable values. As a result, healthy vigorous plants can reach their genetic potential which includes characteristics such as taste and flavor. Plants do not differentiate the nutrients they absorb resulting from hydroponic or organic nutrient solutions. For example, nitrogen is typically available as NO3- or NH4+. It does not matter to the plant whether it came from guano or bottled nutrient."

If the missing minerals and micronutrients not found in synthetics is the very thing that makes organic crops taste different- how do you not understand that?

If you would read back you may see I am in fact "against" organics.

Posted by TheMasterGardener1 5B (My Page) on Sun, Jul 15, 12 at 22:55

I agree focusing on a high porosity mix with a good synthetic fertilizer regimen is ideal for optimal plant growth.

@maple_grove: technically rock dust is inorganic, and only counts as 'organic' as contrasted with chemicals that have been processed out of rocks.

For non-N nutrients, the advantages are that the nutrients are insoluble and will not leech out of the medium during watering, and the plant can access them readily as it requires as long as it has good mycorrhizal colonization. There is no risk of nutrient burn with rock dust.

For N, you could possibly supply it at no cost via a mulch of grass/clover clippings, or urine. Urine requires less ecosystem than do grass clippings, which need worms to till them in.

I used to be a big fan of hydro, but the complexity of some of the system types and the tendency of breakage is unappealing. "Organic" soil of whatever sort can be effectively turned into hydro with sufficient application of an air/water holding medium like DE or vermiculite. The main advantages of hydro are increased water and air availability to roots, which also happens to be beneficial for other soil organisms besides plants.

@nil13: I stand corrected.

@TMG: Symbiotic soil organisms increase the disease resistance, resistance to drying out, and resistance to transplant shock for virtually all plants. Mycorhiza increase the surface area of roots dramatically and allow them to absorb things such as rock phosphorous and micronutrients. They also help control pH and conditions around the root system. Technically you could probably establish them in a hydro culture, but application of soluble fertilizer, especially P, tends to inhibit their growth.

Also, highly soluble nutrient forms force plants to take them up directly by diffusion, whether the plant actually happens to need more of that nutrient or not. This leads to chemically unchanged fertilizer salts ending up in the harvested product, giving it a "chemical" taste that does not occur in organics.

"I used to be a big fan of hydro, but the complexity of some of the system types and the tendency of breakage is unappealing. "

Agree. I like basic soilless top feed drain to waste- Just growing in containers with a soilless media.

I agree with what you said about the advatages of organics.

"Technically you could probably establish them in a hydro culture, but application of soluble fertilizer, especially P, tends to inhibit their growth."

Not only that, they cant thrive in a high porosity grow media at all. Air porosity is what really grows healthy roots. That is why synthetics are just better for container culture.

Mycorhyza and symbiotic bacteria can live pretty much anywhere roots can, and benefit from basically the same things, air especially. They will grow quite well in perlite, vermiculite, diatomaceous earth, peat, coir, rock wool, a bubble bucket, and probably even aeroponics although that would be unusual. All that is required, or at least helpful, is that you use an organic fertilizer low in soluble phosphorous.

Not that is wrong. I would not want viewers misled.

Incomplet- I have grown a long time and understand grow media and the science of growing from experience. I see how it is not easy to support micro life in a high porosity grow media. You can not innoculate a high porosity grow media and think it will hold a colony.

Not only that. Micro life breake down the strucure of the grow media into small particals- not good for plants that will be in the container a while. I can reuse my 511 for years. If I used organics, it would last not as long.

Either you can't innoculate the medium or else the innoculant will break it down, but you can't really have both :P.

I prefer diatomaceous earth because it solves both problems; organisms grow easily in it, it breaks down only inconceivably slowly, and it's already in micro-sized pieces, you can't interrupt its structure any.

It is sad to see so many people that do not have any idea what Azomite is about or have never used it trash the idea of it. They just have to tell everyone their opinion of it without ever researching it or trying it. Azomite has been used in agriculture for decades. Yes, that's right, farmers have used it successfully for decades and swear by it. I use it in my back yard garden and in soil mixes for containers. You need to understand it is for organic gardening as it replaces minerals and when micronutrients need minerals they can get them easily if you add these minerals to your soil. If you grow organic and use compost teas, then you will really see a difference with Azomite.

Today I have read and watched all I can on the use of rock dust . Nowhere have I been able to find where someone has done a comparison test showing equal tests of with and without rock dust either inground or pot. That would go a long way to a lot of people whether it truly was worth the great expense of the product.

I took some cuttings back around the first of nov. 2013. Pared them down to only 1pair of leaves to start. The mix of potting soil, peat, vermiculite, and worm castings 25% of the mix. The only other thing added is a liquid seaweed flush once a month. The castings work as a time release each time they watered. Would they grow the same without the castings? maybe. But since I am a vermicomposter this is what I believe in and that it will ward off disease , infection, and pests. So far thats the case

{{gwi:728}}

{{gwi:730}}

Just going to say there is credible studies out there that back up Azomite. Just look for them. Also on another forum I visit there are a few members who use it and have experimented with it and the plants that received the Azomite were superior to those without it. So either do a little more looking around for evidence or try the experiments yourself before saying something probably doesn't work.

PS: the person who mixed it with water and got sludge, you mixed too much. I put a tablespoon to a gallon and it is like 99% dissolved.

Rockdusts like Azomite (and don't tell me it's not rockdust—the Azomite website itself admits that it is), may make it so that you need to apply more potassium and phosphorus to your soil. My rockdust gave my plants potassium deficiency (I added potassium sulfate to remedy the situation, and it helped). However, rockdust can strengthen your plants a lot (with the calcium and silica they offer), and help to stimulate micro-organisms. I believe it can impact the flavor as claimed (at least if you use worm castings with it). However, it may raise your soil PH. Rockdust is probably a whole lot more useful on more acidic soils (as opposed to clay soil). I think greensand is a lot safer to use, personally, especially in clay soil that is probably already chalk full of nutrients (whether or not they're available). In my experience, rockdust, though high in calcium, has not prevented blossom end rot in Martino's Roma and Pomodoro San Marzano tomatoes.

In my experience with greensand, indoor potted plants seem to love it (or at least the combination of Espoma greensand and some brand of rock phosphate). I'm not recommending rock phosphate, though, because I hear it's high in heavy metals. However, I imagine just adding phosphorus with the greensand would have a similar effect. I'm experimenting with Texas greensand, now.

The rockdust I used was basalt rockdust from rockdustlocal. The nutritional profile is similar, but a little different than Azomite. I think it has more iron. Basalt rockdust isn't glacial rockdust.

There are lies, and then there are damn lies, and then there are statistics and science! You only need common sense! There is air, water, and friggin dirt! how much organic can you get with those 3!!

I have since changed my stance on Rock dust. After seeing test results I have learned rock dust DOES NOTHING what so ever. Check out Alberta urban gardener on Youtube. Specifically this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwF3TFOzIik

This guy does GREAT work on dispelling gardening myths. Using real lab tests. Unlike a certain "Green grower" that just spouts off about rock dust being so great without any testing.

In my personal experiments, basalt rockdust does do stuff, but what it does is another story. The primary benefit seems to be that it adds extra calcium and silica to the soil. The other minerals are secondary, and may or may not be available. If you don't need extra calcium and silica, I would reconsider its use, except for experimentation. Its best uses, in my experience, seem to be as an additive to nutrient-depleted seed-starting mix (along with potassium sulfate), and as an additive to muskmelons (cantaloupes, honeydew, etc.) at the time of transplanting (my muskmelons did a whole lot better this year in the same soil with rockdust added than the muskmelons I planted last year; they looked much healthier, too). If your soil isn't deficient in anything important, you're probably not going to notice much benefit (if any at all). Rockdust can definitely raise the soil PH, and cause issues if you don't need it. If rockdust doesn't do anything for you, though, you might consider trying sea minerals. Those really made my pepper turn greener, and fast (but don't overuse them, since they're high in sodium, and it can build up in your soil; I would recommend them as a foliar spray to cut down on the sheer amount of sodium going into the soil, and to increase efficiency).

Anyway, rockdust does stuff, but the effects may be subtle if it's not particularly needed. If you have clay-loam soil like we do, I only recommend it for seed-starting mix and muskmelons. If you have more acidic, sandy, calcium-deficient soil, you may get more benefit.

Anyway, rockdust is supposed to be applied far in advance. I didn't apply mine far in advance. So, the effects I noted are not according to how rockdust is traditionally supposed to be used.

All the arguing back and forth here is like-- which came first the chicken or the egg.

Not really :-) It is a discussion between those that understand container gardening has virtually NO similarities to inground gardening and needs to be approached from a completely different viewpoint and methodology and those who do not understand that or choose to overlook it.

One can add whatever additives or amendments or magic elixirs they like to a container planting but they will not eliminate the need for or the efficiency of application of a fully balanced water soluble fertilizer. And they could also be quite detrimental.

btw, there is a lot of hocus pocus being quoted here that also has no scientific support :-) Plant roots access nutrients via soluble ions. And it makes NO difference to the plant if those nutrients are delivered by synthetic/chemical fertilizers or by naturally derived organic ones. Once those nutrients become soluble and able to be accessed or absorped, it makes no difference to the plant at all as to where or how they were sourced. That is just basic botany!

Why refresh what's 3 years past to the detriment of today?

BTW - the egg came first.

We know chickens are a product of the inter/cross-breeding of many species of wild jungle fowl domesticated by man. Thus, the fowl with the distinction of having laid the egg from which the first chicken emerged was not a chicken.

Al

Sorry have to adress this whole synthetic, organic thing. You can have living soil in containers and the ground. Growing with synthetic fertilizer is worse for soil health so worse for your health and plant health. Sythetics cant provide the nemerous compounds and elements, or it is at least hard to capture the diversity that is found in oranic mater and earth derived amendments, that are needed to feed microbes which produce food for the plants and help prevent disease and infestations. Leaching is especially bad with synthetics in containers were slow release organics dont leach and the water soluble ones that do leach are far less harmful but do still contaminate water. It is also far more likely to have salt build up with synthetics which leads to nutrient and water lock out. Synthetics kill bacteria and fungi. Fungi can regulate nutrient uptake and brake down organic matter to create more micorbes and nutrients. A living soil can also harness certain microbes that live in the root of the plant. In exchange they sequester nutrients from the atmosphere. These are killed with synthetics.

Container plants can also be fed with sustainable and local oranic sources of fertilizer which leades the plant to take more co2 out of the atmosphere. Were synthetics and unsustainable organics use just as much co2 or more to harvest , create and transport. Real gardening has to be sustainable and fit into the cycle of life. If it doesnt it is a drain on the earth and, especially with a growing population, unsustainable. A microcosim of the living food web can be created in a container.

Sources are from the great amount of permaculture, organic gardening, soil health , and environmental books and resources online. Also have experience running a community permaculture farm for 3years that was fed entirely fom the land and from refuce from a local landscaping company. There is an entire field of scientific research behind organic and microbial processes. Cutting edge sicience is finding organic solutions to problems created by modern ag. Practices. (Ps just google this stuff this post is already running to long lol)

Compost worm castings and various mulches and plant teas work great for containers and the amendments added prior to potting can last years. There is also no need to be as precise and consistent with feeding like synthetics because the microbes do the regulating and non salt based stuff is way less likely to burn. Think of the amendments as you slow release and the teas and water soluble/liquids as your feeding. Proper watering practices, microbes and mulch also areate the soil were tilling isnt practical for pernial potted plants. So synthetics lack this natural aeration from microbial activity. This combined with water compactoin of soil , which is reduced with mulch, leads to far less oxygen in the roots when using synthetics. Another reason good microbes are usually killed.

Synthetics is a short term solutoin with long terms penalties.

O n also azomite, rock dust, and green sand all help with soil texture and drainage. They are ground up minerals from the earth all with varying compositoins. I would add alittle bit of all three to the soil mix before potting. Then after a couple years scratch alittle bit of each once a year. You could also test the soil and look up the composition of all three to really target the actual deficiency and balance trace element composition.

Fyi these amendments aren't old wives tales. They are real minerals produce by earth that contain stuff plants need. What is a wives tale is that you always need them. Minerals and traces elements last years in soil. Adding these when not needing to cant harm the plants you just might not be able to see the benefits because what was added might have been already present. This doesnt mean it wont benefit in the long run when the plants finally makes it threw what was already there. More of a maintenance thing and soil conditioner thing than a thing that you can directly see the benefits unless a deficiency was already preaent.

If a deficiency is present i would start with a liquid micro builder, then top dress lightly with a water soluble(micronized) then scratch in a granular slow release of the particular rock dust or mineral that directly coresponds with the deficiency. Then a month later scratch more of these amendments in that cover what the first one didnt. If you have a micro deficiency you ethier started with poor soil or old soil, or just happened to find that pocket that was lacking , so another deficiency is more likely to accure. Knowing the demand of the particular potted plant and testing the soil will take alot of geuss work out and help you pin point which of these to add.

Lol then look at my container plants. 100% oganic. 100% healthy. Have you ever tried organics in a container cause done a ton of both. Synthetics highly increase the chance of infestations and disease. You also have to feed much more frequently.

It just takes experience, observation and knowledge of plants needs n you can easly amendmend pots to there needs. Organics also has liquid nutrients and compost

Its not just about growing your plant its about having a sustanble system that can be maintained in a growing population. Container or in the field. If you keep trucking in sythetics and throwing away other plant matter cause you just want something readly available it will slowly kill the earth. But threw the organic cyle of life and the endless supply of energy from then sun the amount of oranic matter slowly increases. That combine with havesting inorganic earth matter like mineral( best done threw deep rooted plants like trees) the amount of oranic growable medium will slowly increase due to the recycling of old and the addition of earths crust and energy from the sun. Also from microbes that can be inoculated in the root system of certain plants that pull nutrients from the atmosphere. Azomite, rock dust, and green sand are all amendments that add trace elements and can be slowly incorated into the cycle of life. Feeding microbes, your plant and at the right amounts improve soil stucture.

I love when someone enters these discussions with these strongly adamant pronouncements that organics really do work - and work better than synthetics - in a container growing situation, yet provide nothing scientific to back up their claims nor even photographic evidence of just how "wonderful" their plants are growing. Ditto the same claims that organically grown plants are somehow better and stronger than those receiving a traditional synthetic fertilization....there is nothing scientific to support this contention. The plants don't know and don't care where their nutrients originated - by the time they are able to access them (if at all with organics in a container), they are ALL in the form of an ionic soluble salt regardless of their origination.

btw, I have to laugh when someone uses the claim of "it just takes experience, observation and knowledge of plants needs" in refutation of any of Al's hugely informative posts, as he excels in these areas, far more than 99% of any other posters here. It just makes someone issuing these claims look silly :-)

For container culture I almost exclusively use soluble synthetic fertilizer, primarily because it gives me control over what plants get and when they get it, something I place a high value on.

I don't see any of your plants ............ but I'll watch for the images.

"Have you ever tried organics in a container[?] .......Indeed I have; and that's the very reason I use Foliage-Pro 9-3-6 almost exclusively. It's proven to work much better than relying on organic contents in the medium to feed the plant for all types of container growing I've practiced. Synthetics highly increase the chance of infestations and disease. Horsefeathers. You also have to feed much more frequently. So, what's the point? I don't mind feeding on a weekly or bi-weekly basis, at all. Growing things proficiently takes some effort. I always try to do the best I can at whatever I'm doing, even if it takes a bit longer or I have to work a bit harder at it. I also use growing media that requires watering much more frequently than media based on peat, coir, compost, composted forest products, or other fine-textured ingredients.

What this discussion boils down to is, I'm not here to judge growers for their choices. I offer the benefit of my limited experience and meager knowledge, then allow others to judge for themselves whether or not it's in their best interest to follow any suggestions I make, or make the effort to follow or extrapolate something useful from the offering. Lecturing someone and trying to force an ideology of questionable efficacy and steeped in politics on them is probably not the best way to make your case.

Please have a good Easter.

Al

Just trying to save the eviroment. Organic takes alot of work to. My point was environmental

Can source all you need locally and create a living soil your selff. With sythetics you have to constantly truck in liquids make in factories. There is also more run off and waste and the demand is contant with little or no reuse possible but i guess partial organic is better than nothing. Just think of your impact if continued for 7 generations. N the impact involes more than just your use on your plants. Gatta trace it back to the industry you support. Organics isnt always harm fee though. I always strive for local organic, recycled and sustanble

Can make your own liquid organic nutrients from the weeds you pull and the pruned plant matter

This is the Container Gardening forum. We discuss how best to grow and care for plants grown in pots, not in the ground. They are two very separate sets of conditions with two very separate methodologies, You can't just jump back and forth between the two willy-nilly without making some invalid assumptions or flat out mistakes.

If you want to adhere to organic practices 100%, then grow directly in the ground for best results. If you are growing in containers, then stick to synthetics for similar healthy and productive plants.

"Can make your own liquid organic nutrients from the weeds you pull and the pruned plant matter"

If this was so easy and effective and considering the volumes of raw material available, generally for free, why has it not yet been bottled or packaged and sold?? About as close as we get to that is something like compost tea but even that has minimal nutritive value......barely more than tap water!

There is a larger span of reaearch involved than just how plants end up taking the nutrients threw the same ions. Using the same argument for every issue raised makes you look

So this is a save the environment message, not about how to bring along the healthiest plants. I noticed that from the beginning. Your 'coming clean' about the reason for your position makes me want to stop disagreeing with the things you're asserting. Your stated cause is noble even if the information is debatable. I think there is already enough discussion in this thread to provide others with what they need to decide what approach they prefer so I'll find something else to do.

Take care.

Al

Also in thre process of getting ready for the seasson. No plants at my current locatoin yet and am 10hours away from the work trade farm i used to run were almost all growing reasource, container and field came straight from the land and plant waste besides the organic potting soil we used.

Dear Al :-) One of many things I like about you is your patience and compassion when responding to posters with untenable viewpoints. I wish I could master that characteristic myself.

Alot i principles i use as the foundation of my argument are from high school biology as well. Its called the water cycle, life cycleand coservatoin of energy. Putting it into practice requires futher reasearch in decomposition, microbes, fungi, crop rotaion, permaculture, environmentalism, compost teas, living supper soil and sustanabilty. All practices developed threw the scientific reasearch of organic process on a microscopic scale up to the observation of nature on earth.

This is an old thread, but assuming we see any value in adding Azomite into a raised bed for acid=loving plants such as Camellias, would it make more sense to add the Azomite into the compost layer on top of the soil, rather than mixing it directly into the soil? Definitely, that would be easier.

Working from the Azomite documentation, it looks like we want to add something around 2% to 4% of the soil volume as Azomite? That seems high to me.

Have you ever had your soil tested to know if it would even benefit from the addition of azomite (provided you DO believe it offers some benefit)? What are your reasons behind the need for this?

@westes Zone 9b California SF Bay

I recommend against giving azomite or any rockdust to acid-loving plants. If you chelate all the minerals so they're no longer alkaline, maybe. Gypsum should be fine for acid-loving plants; maybe greensand.

@Mokinu The mix I am adding this to is probably too acidic. But that begs the question how alkalizing would Azomite be, so that I do not go too far towards alkaline.

@gardengal48 (PNW Z8/9) Fair point that I should test soil first.

@westes Zone 9b California SF Bay

I'm not sure exactly how alkalizing it is. If it has a lot of oxide minerals that would be a bigger concern than carbonates (but both are alkalizing).

Well, the azomite company says it has a pH of 8.0, but that it doesn't seem to raise the pH of the soil (but I would be skeptical if people don't report great results with it on acid-loving plants, and I wouldn't use more than they use, nor in a more alkaline soil than they used, unless you do some experimentation to see what works).