The reason there's so many "chemicals" applications is most of the "soil" is a rather crude container mix given that it has little to no nutrient holding capability and drains quickly. The wet sawdust is supposed to help conserve water, but a lot of people find it to be very weather/humidity specific to certain areas. It's a whole lot easier to get away with it in the Pacific NorthWest than it is many other parts of the nation.

It's a bit wasteful in nutrient use and ends up dumping a lot in the bottom of the soil underneath the sand/sawdust mixture over time.

Some people like it, though.

As mentioned, its ability to be productive has a strong regional component. Depending on where you are in zone 7 you may want to reconsider adopting it.

That said, if one buys into such unusual experimental methods you have to buy in whole hog for it to have any hope of working.

So if one wasn't comfortable (I wouldn't be either) with what is the primary element of the approach - the weekly need to dose with all that stuff - then why consider using the method at all?

but just feels odd.

Trust your instincts.

Dave

I couldn't agree with Dave more! Trust your instinct, use your intuition, do what you truly believe is the right thing to do.. Do what feels natural, not what feels odd.

Joe

Dang, it sounds like the nutrients compensate for the plant-killing nature of the 'soil' medium! What a weird method.

Yes it is a weird method. Defies gardening common sense in many ways yet some swear by it.

shpigford - you specifically asked if the chemicals are a problem so consider these points:

1) there is already ample evidence and publication of ground water and run-off contamination problems from agricultural excess with many of these. Yes they are all natural elements but that doesn't mean they cannot be toxic. Phosphorous especially.

So ground water contamination aside, if you live near a body of water, are adjacent to any wells, are on a septic system, or have any sort of ponds - natural or artificial - then yes, the use of this mixture on a weekly basis could create some serious problems for you.

2) even a raised bed, unless it is built with a solid bottom, drains into the surrounding soil and ground water. Since raised beds require more frequent watering because they dry out more quickly, all of these products will quickly be leaching out of the bed into the ground every time you water. Any of those components, when used in excess can lead to soil toxicity that is eventually reflected in the plants. Google boron, iron, and manganese soil toxicity for all the details on each.

Just a couple of things to consider.

Dave

Aren't pretty much all of those "chemicals" included it many commercial fertilizers?

Is this a method where you are actually buying all of those separately (if so - in what form and where?) or is there just a marketed fertilizer that is specific to this "method"?

I stick to organic fert once my plants are in the garden - I am a believer in soil building - but I recognized everything on your list as something I have seen listed in organic fertilizers of one kind or another.

So - it seems to me its more about the form in which these materials are added and the amounts that people are alarmed about.

Anyone doing container gardening is probably fertilizing this much arent they?

I attended a presentation on the Mittleider method a few years back when a devotee was opening a community garden and wanted to indoctrinate potential growers. I had no interest in the community garden other than to walk through now and then, but I was curious about this "method".

No mention was ever made of growing in sawdust! The garden itself and my property are on dune sand. It's incredibly fine and actually water repellent. Nary an organic particle anywhere to be found unless you put it there. Then it disappears in short order, as if it had been an unfortunate animal that wandered into quicksand.

Needless to say the initiator of the garden had trucked in all kinds of amended soil to make raised beds and I have, over time, added much organic material to my raised beds. But the sand always reappears. So the battle continues....

Back to Mittleider, but first a confession: I am a retired chemist. One of the things I tried to teach my students over the years was a respect for what chemicals can do for us, both good and bad. "Chemical-free" are fighting words. In a "chemical-free" world, this conversation would not be taking place. Nor would anything else. So I don't have a problem with chemicals, per se, which many people seem to regard as the work of the devil.

That said, I was amazed at the amount of fertilizer suggested for the method. Now my sand is essentially sterile, so I have to add all kinds of nutrients on a regular basis, and also have to add new organic matter as old disappears into the vast underground area where things organic go to die in this dune sand. Organic matter helps the sand absorb water (which otherwise runs off unless a real deluge comes and lasts (we should be so lucky).

I took two of my raised beds and planted the same plants, fertilizing one according to the Mittleider plan and one with an organic mixture I had recently come across (and still use). By harvest time it was a wash, but the Mittleider bed had required a lot of fussing every week, whereas the organic bed with its slower acting fertilizers took care of itself after the initial feeding when the bed was prepared.

I have to add that organic fertilizers are not necessarily "cheap", but they do the job.

One more thing: you have to do what works. In my case, with the sterile sand that constantly needs organic additions and will not retain any soluble nutrients for long, I face one additional challenge: low heat and summer fog. So my soils are typically colder than I would like. Of course I do all the usual things to warm them up, especially when warm season crops are planted.

But I have found that one part of Mittleider method works for me: when I prepare a bed for planting, I apply the suggested "starter" fertilizer mix and water it in. The next day I plant, using whatever amounts of the organic mix are appropriate for the plants going in. This works for me because the soluble chemicals from the Mittleider "starter" mix are immediately available, and my plants with their roots shivering in cool soil get a little boost to get them started.

I'm not sure that sawdust is much better than dune sand, but I would not go out of my way to find out.

Yay for Steve and the scientific method!

>I took two of my raised beds and planted the same plants, fertilizing one according to the Mittleider plan and one with an organic mixture I had recently come across (and still use).

What you call 'chemicals' are nutrients. You need the same kind of nutrients or you die. Do you want to die? If not, then stop worrying about chemicals.

This particular method seems overly complicated to me, but it's not really different then typical container methods that use non-soil mixes. The chemicals you refer to are all vital to plant growth and life. Organic fertilizer provides the same ingredients - the exact same. No plant has ever been able to tell the difference between organic and 'chemical' fertilizer.

The Mittleider method completely bypasses natural soil ecology, and makes up for it by supplying required nutrients via a solution that quickly leaches away, hence the necessity for repeated feeding. The plants are growing in a very similar way to hydroponics. Reminds me of astronauts in the 70s living on Tang and tubes of nutrients - they got what they needed to stay alive, but had they kept eating that way a long time, I doubt they would have lived long. I don't recommend eating Mittleider-grown vegetables if you are interested in sustainability, supporting nature and healthy, living ecosytems, or being strong and healthy yourself. It is a system someone is trying to sell you on, because the system is continually dependent on purchasing more product. I am not anti-mineral fertilizer when our soils have been depleted, but this is test tube food. Read The Intelligent Gardener by Steve Solomon for a better understanding of soil health and how it is reflected in human health.

My son, Patrick, has a Mittleider garden. I'm a horse s**t and compost in my natural soil gardener. Patrick spent a lot... and my wife spent a lot... to get this started. He has 3 raised beds 4' X 16' X 1'. he had no idea of what it would cost when he got into this... well over $1K. I have about about $115 in plants and seeds about $80 in fertilizer and tools, + $80 for fruit bushes and trees. My compost is free at the city dump. As for the dirt, I guess the bank owns part of that. ;-) All I need to add is water and muscle.

In the mean time Patricks tomatoes all have leaf curl from being in dry beds during 2 weeks of over 90 degree weather where at its peak hit 121 degrees. I was watering my tomatoes and potatoes twice a day during that and Patrick stuck to his schedule. in spite of the uncontrollable, his plants are HUGE. the Zucchini alone is producing 24" long behemoths, (see Image) and lots if them, I have some of the same plants as patrick (we germinate seedlings together) and mine are just starting to produce fruit, except the cherry tomatoes, I have gobs.

But Patricks garden is not without other problems, insects are devouring a lot of his greens and some fruit has blossom rot. and a coup[le of his plants have died for no apparent reason. and his peas took a serious hit from a fungus. My sweet pea flowers also contracted it.

I'll stick to my Organic ways. Patrick will learn and increase his knowledge and expertise, as do I. I do hope he pays a little more attention to what I'm doing... after all I started gardening at the age of 9, 50 years ago. I have learned a lot studying his method and realized I need to add some supplemental nutrients to get better yields and treat my very clay soil.
On the other side of the Mittleider coin we have harvested about 100 Lbs. of deliciousness and it is just the second week in June. So the method has merit!

I like merits of this method in spite of the start up costs. Those out there who a voraciously attacking the Mittleider method are probably the same folks who are afraid of GMO and bigfoot.

Soils of Mittleider gardens have been tested by soil laboratories on many occasions. Dr. Mittleider's garden has been tested after 20 years of growing and still showed no signs of salt contamination, toxicities of the subsoil or salinity problems. And you'll find earthworms in those beds. The plant and root growth are prolific and create wonderful soil tilth over time without the need of organic amendments. Fresh clean plant residues can always be worked back into the beds but it is not necessary. The fertiliser mix is only sufficient to replace the nutrients that gets taken up by the plants. Nobody in their right mind wants to waste money by over-supplying salts to your garden.

I have no idea what this method is, but sounds a lot like semi-hydroponics, basically use sterile non-organic growing medium and provide all nutrition in liquid form from readily absorbable chemicals.

I tried the semi-hydroponics once few years ago. I found the need for keeping precise chemical levels, right temperature and humidity etc too difficult. It needed very regular attention, lot of measuring etc. I soon gave up and went back to the nature's way.

"Dr. Mittleider's garden has been tested after 20 years of growing and still showed no signs of salt contamination, toxicities of the subsoil or salinity problems"

Tested by whom? A completely independent third party lab, not contracted by Dr. Mittleider?

I just came accross this method, and it seemed promising until I looked into it. Please correct me if I'm wrong but isn't this method just a run to waste with standard soil deep backup system? seems the method has yields similar to hydroponics systems, but uses more space.

Let me start with full disclosure, I am a organic gardener. I read the old book on Mittleider gardening decades ago and still see some intrigue in the "system". What is most important about the Mittleider system is not that it is organic or inorganic but that it is a system. Many of the principles are sound in any gardening style, like getting a quick start by seeding in a nursery of some kind, or watering the root zone and not the plant.

As for the fertilizer I prefer the organic method completely. My method consists of large compost piles that are created by cleaning the barn were my wife's 10 goat live and letting that set for a year and then feeding the rough compost to my worms in a 4 x 14 bed in my greenhouse floor. The finished compost is then spread about a half inch thick on my beds in my 70 x 70 garden and then more rough compost is placed between plants as mulch as needed in the growing season. I also apply a organic fertilizer mix that I got the recipe for out of Mother Earth News in a article written by Steve Solomon the founder of Territorial Seeds. The finished compost from the worm bed is full of worms and worm cocoons. As you can imagine when the mulch is pulled back the beds are full of worms. My soil after 10 years of growing in the same place is BEAUTIFUL! I would enjoy doing a three way comparison with three beds each of a different style. One my organic method, two the Mittleider method and third a cross using the mittleider method with all organic fertilzer.

I suspect two and three would have identical results as too how much production there was with the organic ferts being more expensive. Below ground I suspect there would be a large difference in soil activity, maybe not thou as the extreme dosing of ferts may overdose soil fauna. I can promise you though that neither would have a significant advantage over pure, wholesome, sustainable, organic gardening.

All the elements you've listed are in abundance in regular soil. They're "chemicals" when they come in a bottle, I guess, but not when they're mixed in with soil. I guess they feel odd when they come out of a bottle. As to oddness, to a new gardener, using compost as an amendment sure feels "odd", especially when it is based on manure. You want me to put WHAT on my plants??

That being said, the problem with chemicals in a bottle is that you can use too much of them, such that the soil has a lot more in it than it should.

As noted above, it is my impression that this method uses a medium that is virtually hydroponic, in the the soil substrate is very light. As a result, it leaches very effectively, and the nutrients are pretty much just what you put in it. Hydroponic gardening is pretty much chemical-from-bottle based. Unlike hydroponics, the nutrients you put in this soil pretty much end up on the floor below it, however.