Shellva asks:

"Is Kelp Meal a yearly additive to garden soil like compost and mulch or can good results be achieved for several years with a one time application?"

I advocate making ones own soil amendments as you may know. From the "Mother Earth News" website" can be found the following"

"Before planting each crop, or at least once a year (preferably in the spring), uniformly broadcast 4 to 6 quarts of fertilizer mix atop each 100 square feet of raised bed, or down each 50 feet of planting row in a band 12 to 18 inches wide. Blend in the fertilizer with a hoe or spade. This amount provides sufficient fertility for what I�ve classified as "low-demand" vegetables to grow to their maximum potential and is usually enough to adequately feed "medium-demand" vegetables."

I have used this blend (including kelp meal) for several years now with fantastic results. I must admit I do make additions to my compost (bio-charcoal for one) that are added, which too are impressive considering our current drought conditions. The link below may provide a direction you choose to take.

The nature of vegetable gardening dictates that all organic harvests made may call for a replacement of the organic (fruit) matter removed. It is for this reason I make yearly additions to my plots. I too keep in mind that due to the nature of continued organic gardening, a little goes a long way in due time; the little is put back in proportion to the harvest. I trust this helps in some way�

Blutranes

Here is a link that might be useful: A Better Way To Fertilize

So.... the plan is to make a fertilizer mix and apply it like clockwork regardless of soil chemistry, type, nutrient excesses, deficiencies, plant type or anything else. Just make your home made chemicals and slather your garden liberally over and over again.
Wow, I would have expected something endorsed by "Mother Earth News" to be a bit more environmentally friendly. I guess "Mother Earth News" isn't what I thought it was.

Just make your home made chemicals and slather your garden liberally over and over again.

Did ya even read the article?

I would hardly call Seed Meals, Lime, Bone meal and Kelp chemicals.

That is some great info blutranes, thanks. -p.s. you can forward me your list of website bookmarks anytime you want:)

Yes I read the article, and it was hilarious. The fact that you wouldn't call those things chemicals doesn't change the fact that they are indeed chemicals.
Here's something to consider. You grow legumes (which need no nitrogen supplementation) on a sandy soil with a high water table. You religiously apply organic nitrogen fertilizers. The microbes convert the organic nitrogen to nitrite and then nitrate. The excess of nitrate, which isn't used by plants, is leached into the water table. Congratulations! You're the proud new owner of your very own little nitrate plume.
Someone coming up with a single program for every situation is not doing anyone any favors. Organic fertilizers are chemicals. Organic does not mean "safe".

If I may be allowed to review

Shellva asked:

"Is kelp meal a yearly additive to garden soil like compost and mulch or can good results be achieved for several years with a one time application?"

Since the poster states that, more than likely, compost and mulch are added yearly to his/her garden plots, it is safe to assume that there is a good layer of humus within said garden. For the sake of clarification I offer this from the link below, under the heading "Energy" concerning humus:

"Humus is essentially a massive storage battery containing energy that was originally derived from the sun."

This ability to store energy (as well as water, fertilizer) is one of the tremendous benefits of organic gardening for a period of time. This buildup of humus protects an organic gardener from leaching of fertilizers, the stress of drought to ones plants, and a continued increase of fertility of such a well-maintained garden. Those nutrients not used by a plant are stored within this humus for later use. This is why in my first post I state, "in time we can use less and less". Conventional gardeners indeed have much to worry about concerning leaching, as do gardeners just starting out using organic techniques. However, with each passing season that compost and mulch is used, the level of humus can build and the dangers of leaching diminish in kind. Yes, we organic gardeners should and do exercise caution using any amendment, including compost; this is one of the reasons why we enjoy the bounty we share about on this forum.

Shellva also said:

"I'm talking about using it in vegetable beds rather than flower beds."

This is a very clear statement to me. The question is about vegetables, not fruit trees, shrubs, weeds, grass, or legumes. If one does not know the difference in plant growth requirements another post may be in order for clarification. From the link below under the heading "Carbon Cycle":

"Over a one year period and under average conditions, about 60% to 70% of the carbon in organic residues is recycled back to the atmosphere as carbon dioxide. Five to ten percent is assimilated into the biomass (plant) and the rest resides in new humus."

All the organic matter recycled, compost, mulch, and other amendments could be replaced or the soil can become depleted in the not so distant future. Again, I speak in terms of "vegetable gardening", not hairy vetch.

It is indeed a pleasure to offer personal experience gained from those on this forum, the Internet, and on the job organic gardening. I trust the little I offer will be of helpÂ

Blutranes

What is it that allows humus to store nutrients? The article you posted describes it like this:

COLLOIDAL PROPERTIES

Colloidal refers to the attraction certain soil particles have for cations which are positively charged ions of soil nutrients. Whether organic (humus) or mineral (clay), the colloid is very small and carries a negative electro-magnetic charge that can hold cation nutrients in a manner that allows plant roots access to them. This phenomena is called cation exchange.

Nitrate is not a cation with a positive charge and, logically, not bound to the cation exchange sites of humate and clay colloids. Nitrate is negatively charge and not held on those negatively charged sites. It is like trying to make the negative ends of two magnets stick together. That's why it leaches so easily. It doesn't matter how many cation exchange sites you add with humus, anions like nitrate won't stick to them. They will leach right out. If you add nitrogen that the plants don't use, it has to go somewhere and with water, that somewhere is down.

The question is about vegetables, not fruit trees, shrubs, weeds, grass, or legumes.
So you're saying that if someone tells you that they want to grow a vegetable garden, that it would be crazy for me to wonder if they are growing any sort of beans, lentils or peas? Seriously? No, seriously?
And that was just one example that came off the top of my head. That program could be a problem under a myriad of situations.

I'm sorry. I didn't mean to start an argument. I do realize that every garden situation is different so a blanket fix-all doesn't exist.

My soil is heavy clay soil that was over farmed then stripped for a development. My humus levels in the past have been low.

I've lived here going on 5 years, my soil has improved in that time, I do add organic material in the fall plus mulch crops with straw or pine needles in the late spring early summer.

My flower beds are doing just fine on the schedule I have them. According to professional soil tests I need more nitrogen but I don't want to gain it from synthetic ferts. I'm willing to take the time and effort to "build" a better soil.

I was just curious about how most people who use kelp in their gardens actually use it. I didn't know if it was something that is applied once or if it is something that is used yearly. Many sites point to it's ablility to loosen clay soil so I thought maybe it was something to use only once. Also information says it has all these trace elements that plants use in minute amounts. I wasn't sure if these elements tend to sit there until used or what they do.

Blutranes, thanks for the links. I will definetly read them over a few times.
Squonnk, I promise not to just go around randomly throwing out massive amounts of unneeded stuff on my soil. I'll put some thought and common sense into it. I have had professional soil tests done but I am also letting the plants themselves be a guide. I think that is one of the things Blutranes and the MotherEarth article were alluding to.

Shellva,

It is my pleasure to offer what I have found to be true to those members who allow me to be a part of their gardening experience. I by no means view another members comments as an attempt to argue a point. My view is that we are each others eyes and ears; thus if one sees or hears something another has not mentioned, that view as well deserves to be shared. I do find it sad that no suggestion as to what could be done was offered, but that is ok too.

"I have had professional soil tests done but I am also letting the plants themselves be a guide. I think that is one of the things Blutranes and the Mother Earth article were alluding to."

As much was stated in the link on page two (2) of "Mother Earth News":

"As a rough guide, side-dress about 4 to 6 additional quarts total per 100 square feet of bed during a crop cycle. If the growth rate fails to increase over the next few weeks, the most recent application wasnt needed, so dont add any more."

Since I also have areas of the world famous "Georgia red clay" soil that I garden in, I too understand your question and concern. As I continue to add well-cured compost and use a reasonable level of leaf mulch my humus levels improve with each year. Thus I feel confident with the suggestions that have been offered. The best of fortune is directed your way in your journey called organic gardening. I trust my sharing will benefit the membership in some small way

Blutranes

Shellva, I'm glad you've had a soil test done and that you plan to use fertilizers judiciously. However, articles like the one linked to by Blutranes drive me batty. It gives the impression that you can just come up with a mix and wing it out there no matter what the situation and everything is fine because it's "organic". And then people chant and re-chant that advice with quasi-religious zeal. That sort of thing is rampant in the "organic" crowd. And trust me, I'm not knocking organic growing. Heck, I worked on a certified organic farm for three years and wholly endorse organic methods as a viable alternative to synthetics. They each have their drawbacks but also their own advantages.
My point is illustrated exquisitely in your own post. As an avid follower or organic methods (At least I presume you are from your posts) the sources that you turn to for information obviously lead you to believe that organic materials are not chemicals. It's the impression that you've been given by people who claim to be experts. It's one of the many and consistent half truths about organic gardening and it's a potentially dangerous misunderstanding of the concepts. Since I wholly endorse organic methods (as well as responsible use of synthetics), it bothers me immensely to see organic concepts misrepresented in ways that (A) can potentially be problematic and (B) severely damage the credibility of organic growing as a whole by printing irresponsible organic methods in a nationally syndicated publication that many people believe is virtually infallible. (and yes, sadly, I have talked to many people who think Mother Earth News is the final authority on nearly every subject) That is how misinformation becomes "popular knowledge". It is one of they many popular mis-understandings that mislead people into thinking that as long as they use "organic" products, they're safe.
And no, the article does not promote "letting the plants themselves be a guide". On the contrary, the article says, "at least once a year (preferably in the spring), uniformly broadcast 4 to 6 quarts of fertilizer mix atop each 100 square feet of raised bed"
In other words, apply this stuff every stinkin' year whether your garden needs it or not. It's okay because it's organic. Then they throw in a blurb about not adding any more if it looks like you're over-applying. But by following the "program" your supposed to turn around do it again the next year. It says nothing about cutting back if you're over applying. I repeat, "at least once a year" That's maddness and undermines the whole philosophy of sustainable and environmentally responsible fertility management. I would take a well managed synthetic program over that any day of the week.
As far as sharing opinions and ideas go, that's great. I'm all for it as long as a contrary opinion has a shred of validity to it. But, to suggest that my hypothetical situation has no merit because I was talking about legumes and not vegetables is a statement that came from, to my best reckoning, somewhere between Mars and the Twilight Zone. If I've said something that doesn't make sense, call me on it but stuff like that? Oh, come on.
As to not offering a suggestion about what can be done, I did not offer an alternative fertilizer program because there isn't an alternative one-size fits all program that is responsible and effective. My point was to at least put a chink into the armor of one of the frustrating and mind bogglingly persistent organic myths.

I see that was Skoot_Cat's statement, not yours Shellva. My apologies. Allow me to amend....

"My point is illustrated exquisitely in Skoot_Cat's post. As an avid follower or organic methods (At least I presume he is from his member profile) the sources that he turns to for information obviously lead him to believe that organic materials are not chemicals."

There we go. That, I believe, does it.

McLove'N'Hugs gets another VoR!

I looked at those links yesterday and did some searching on the authors of some of these organic articles and not surprisingly come back to people trying to sell something. I am always skeptical of anyone writing published articles when they are trying to sell a product. Some people don't appreciate skepticism, so be it.

As squonnk pointed out, these articles get picked up by some and re-hashed ad nauseum as good solid research. These posters then get a "following" that blindly hangs on their every word, almost like a cult, so be it.

Often, bad information gets mixed in with stuff that is true and it gets incredibly difficult to determine the good stuff from the crap. Other times information is taken out of context and twisted around to mean something totally different. There is some good information on this forum (as well as others) but there is also lots of bad information. On many occasions it can be explained away as poor writing style or lack of inflection (guilty as charged) but not always.

Some will accuse us as being too confrontational, so be it.

Lloyd

P.S. Imagine my surprise when I read that legumes weren't vegetables! That took a few minutes of googling to straighten out.

Some will accuse us as being too confrontational, so be it.

So be it indeed, HRC. I'd rather give good information than a warm fuzzy feeling. I could probably do both if I really worked on it but I'm a bit prickly by nature. I'm at peace with it.

Anything made of matter is a chemical for crying out loud. Any liquid, solid, gas. Any pure substance; any mixture. Water is a chemical. Technically speaking, so is a chunk of your computer.

Peace be with you young man, and may the microbes continue to digest the bountiful materials you so graciously provide to them.

If I want warm and fuzzy, I put on a sweater!

LOL

HRC

Which is why your comment was so utterly wrong.

The last was for Skoot_Cat.

My last was for squonnk, this is starting to look like a "who's on first" gag. LOL

Lloyd

Ha ha, that's funny Lloyd.

And since I am, apparently, on some sort of a roll this morning, Skoot_Cat. You already knew that organic fertilzers are chemicals. One could say that your level of knowledge puts you at a greater level of responsibility. Intentionally stating something that you full well know is patently false in order to make organic products sound as though they are safe is precisely the type of dishonest perpetuation of organic myths that I was talking about.

I read an article on the hazards of over applying Dihydrongenous Oxide a while ago (I can't find it now, sorry), anybody know anything about it?

HRC

Here ya go.
;)

(slaps hand against forehead)

Of course, Monoxide!

HRC

We sorta went waaayyy off on a tangent here...

Lloyd

Yeah, I expect these last few will probably get deleted. (and with good reason, but it sure is fun)

IMO when the majority of people hear/use the word chemicals when referring to gardening they are not referring to things that are or were once alive. (feed grains, kelp etc). They are more times than not referring to synthetic fertilizers, fungicides, herbicides etc.

For example; I don't go around saying I would like a ice cold glass of chemical. I say I want a ice cold glass of water. As Im sure most people do.

Just to be clear, I never once suggested that Seed Meals, Lime, Bone meal and Kelp were safe or unsafe. When anything I mean anything is used inappropriately it could potently have negative effects.

"Then they throw in a blurb about not adding any more if it looks like you're over-applying. But by following the "program" your supposed to turn around do it again the next year. It says nothing about cutting back if you're over applying."

I may be misinterpreting what you meant, but that looks somewhat self contradictory.

You said that there is "a blurb about not adding any more if you're over applying," then a little later say that "it says nothing about cutting back if you're over applying."

The second statement seems to me to contradict the first one.

Exactly Scoot_Cat. When you say that you would hardly call those products chemicals, you are setting up a clear delineation in the minds of people with a less complete understanding that there is a difference between "chemicals" (synthetic fertilizers) and "not chemicals" (organic fertilizers). You did not state the whole argument in its entirety but you made a push to bolster the idea that organic fertilizers are not chemicals and that synthetics are. In the mind of a reasonable person with a weaker background, that implies that organics are safer because they are not chemicals.

Howdy bpgreen, I do see your point. But, there is a subtle difference. The program says that if you are over applying, stop applying for that year, but only that year. It then goes on to tell folks to do exactly the same thing the next year that got them to the point of over application to begin with when it tells people to apply that mix at that rate "at least" once a year, whether that was too much last year or not. The savvy gardener will deviate from the plan. People who blindly accept the program because it was designed by an "expert" will continue to over apply.

...or in my case...

"In the mind of an unreasonable person with a weaker background...bold added by moi.

HRC