| Haven't used it, but that doesn't matter. Fertilizers are comprised only of a limited number of salts and the largest difference is in the fractions in which they (salts) are combined. Based on NPK, it should be ok, though it is very high in N compared to P. I can tell you more about the fertilizer if you can find out from what source it derives its N, what micro-nutrients are present and at what rates/%s, and whether or not it includes Ca and Mg. After more than 10 minutes of searching, I was unable to find the answers to these questions and gave up. Their claim that you use less powder to deliver the same amount of nutrients is somewhat specious, stretching the truth more than a little. Because of its high N content, you DO use less powder to deliver any particular dose of N when compared to fertilizers with a lower N content, but you use MORE of it to deliver an adequate amount of P. Since P is represented at such a low %, if you fertilize only at adequacy levels of N, you ensure a P deficiency. Fertilizing at adequacy levels of P will find you over-supplying N, but these imbalances are not particularly serious. Also, the claim that you use less powder ...... doesn't hold water when applying the same reasoning to a comparison of 3:1:1 fertilizers like 30-10-10. The 'important to know' questions are "What does it offer in micro-nutrients and does it have Ca and Mg". I would opt for the commonly found 24-8-16 blends first. Al |
