It depends on what your soil needs. In some parts of the country the soil has a naturally high P value- so no bone meal would be needed. Some places are great for calcium, or other nutrients.

If you have reasonable OM in the soil, then often just alfalfa or soy meal is all that you need (if you don't have enough compost). Spot applications for heavy feeders- sure go nuts.

I guess that my issue is that some of these amendments are unnecessary, expensive, and potentially harmful to the soil/plants if there's enough already. Looking at some of the soil test results that people post here- they can make up a mix that's much better suited to their circumstance than the shotgun approach in the article- but they do list good sources of the important nutrients.

I think the term "organic fertilizer" is an oxymoron.

There is nothing oxymoronic about it. A fertilizer is any approved plant nutrient supplement and organic fertilizers are those derived from natural sources as opposed to synthesized chemical ones. It is as simple as that.

Fertlizer... makes soil more fertile... do it organically and there you have it.

So the rest of us don't have to register with the Washington Post just read that article, can you summarize or quote the parts you want comments on?

It was one of those "mix alfalfa meal, soybean meal, blood and bone meal, stone dusts, lime, 1/2 cup mayonaise, the first 3 American Idol winners, and a winnebago together and apply as magic organic fertilizer" type things.

I did a search at their site on "fertilizer" and got the article free.

I was surprised to read that compost does not add much nutrient to the soil. And in the article it said add one pound of the mixture per foot of the height of tree or bush, it just too much.

Soybean meal seems to be a good fertilizer. One year I added grounded soy bean to a tree peony, in fall and early spring, this one foot plant had 18 hugh and lush flowers. Then I got lazy, next year it had only 5.

Because the nutrients in compost are not readily available compost is classified as a soil amendment, not a fertilizer. Fertilizers are those products with the nutrients readily available and most of the best organic materials do not have readily available nutrients and then are not fertilizers.
If one were to work on their soil and make it well balanced nutritionally, a good, healthy soil, they would not need "fertilizers". Those gardeners that must rely on "fertilizers" every year do not have good, healthy soil.
Since most all soybeans are genetically engineered they should not be used in an organic garden.

Once again we need a little clarification to avoid confusion and outright misinformation. Fertilizers by definition are any source of plant nutrients that are labeled with a guaranteed analysis - without a guaranteed analysis of NPK, they are considered to be a soil amendment rather than a fertilizer even though they may offer nutrient value, sometimes considerable. Compost is considered a soil amendment as it has no guaranteed analysis - depending on content, the NPK values may vary widely. Organic sources of plant nutrients are just as valid as fertilizers as are synthetic sources, provided they are labeled with a guaranteed analysis. Ready or immediate availabilty has absolutely nothing to do with it.

kimmsr, please stop making statements that a reliance of fertilizers indicates a lack of healthy soil. One does not necessarily have anything to do with another and this is simply your (rather biased) opinion and has no basis in fact. There are many instances when even a healthy and very fertile soil is unable to provide sufficient nutrient availabilty for the plants growing on it - heavy annual cropping of edibles is one instance, inadequate pH levels tying up nutrients is another.

Here is a link that might be useful: fertilizers, defined and explained

kimmsr- I'm not sure where exactly you get your definitions- but even if the letter of what you say is correct- you're splitting hairs.

There are fast release and slow release artificial fertilizers, as well as organic fertilizers.

Urine- fast release, organic fertilizer.

Fertilizers must have the nutrients listed readily available, water soluble.
Soil amendments do not have readily available nutrients, because they are not water soluble they cannot be easily measured.
It is as simple as that.

Sorry, but that's incorrect. Fertilizers must have a guaranteed analysis (percentage by volume) of at least one of the three primary nutrients - nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium. There is no requirement that these be either water soluble or readily/immediately available. Solubility and/or availability have no bearing on whether a product is considered a fertilizer.

It's as simple as that.

Umm, well- not exactly. I repeat- you're splitting hairs. Anyone that claims that something that I add that provides the NPK that plants need for the season is not fertilizing- is either wrong or splitting hairs.

Pablo where did I ever say that adding a soil amendment, compost, would not add Nitrogen, Phosphorus, Potash, as well as many other necessary nutrients, far more that you get form most "fertilizers"? Compost, and other forms of organic matter, do not add these things in soluble form adn since they are not readily available they do not show up in the testing and since thye do not show up in the testing these things cannot, by law, be called "fertilizers" so they are called soil amendments. It is really quite simple to understand.
When you add compost, and other forms of organic matter, you feed the Soil Food Web that feeds your plants the nutrients they need, and since these nutrients are not very soluble they tend to not leaves your soil for the ground water as the nutrients in "fertilizers" do and add to the pollution of our planet.
Your plants need far more than the NPK that you find in most commercial "fertilizers". They also need Magnesium, Zinc, Calcium, Iron, Sulfur, Boron, Copper, Manganese, Molybdenum, Arsenic, and some 20 plus more micronutrients to grow strong and healthy and if all you put into your soil is NPK you cannot have strong, healthy plants the same as if all you eat is red meats you will not be healthy. The Natural Resources Conservation Service, even when it was the Soil Conservation Service, recognizes that the single biggest problem with soils in the USA is lack of organic matter, the same thing that caused the dust bowls of the 1930's. Apparently we have not yet learned lessons form that experience. Prior to the 1950's few people put much more than organic matter into their garden soil, there simply was not that much available then, so this whole "fertilizer" thing is really only about 1/2 century old.
The term "organic fertilizer" is an oxymoron.

Perhaps a good deal of this debate is the result of conflicting definitions. The fertilizer industry is regulated by the EPA and to legally be termed a "fertilizer", a commercial product must meet certain requirements, primarily the listing of the guaranteed analysis. There is no requirement as to the source of the product - it can be chemically derived or from natural sources ("organic fertilizer") - and there is no requirement that it be water soluble or immediately available, only that it provides a consistent, measurable quantity (percentage by volume) of at least one of the primary plant nutrients and that this be clearly outlined on the product label.

While any source of organic matter (compost, manures, grass clippings, leaves, seed and grain meals, etc., etc.) can and will provide some nutrient content, that content is variable,and without a guaranteed analysis of what that nutrient contribution might be, cannot be legally considered or sold as a fertilizer even though they will perform in that capacity. They are therefore considered to be soil amendments. Formulation of homemade organic fertilizers is obviously quite possible from various soil amendments and/or single ingredient organic ferts but unless you are chemist with remarkable math skills, determining the percentage by volume of the various nutrients contained in this formulation is not possible and so this is not legally considered to be a "fertilizer" per se, although it will most adequately serve as effectively as one that is labeled and purchased as such.

The persistance of the notion that organically derived fertilizers is an oxymoron is just plain silly. All manner of organic products are sold and packaged as fertilizers and meet all the legal requirements for this designation. In many cases, blended organic products (as opposed to some single ingredient products, like blood or bone meal) contain not only the three primary macronutrients but a wide range of all sorts of micronutrients and trace elements and are excellent, well-rounded and very complete fertilizers and can be used without concern for pollution, burning or destruction of the soil food web.

I know all that, Kimmsr, but I think that you're playing semantics and putting restrictions on the term "fertilizer" that are artificial.

Dictionary.com says: fer·til·iz·er n. Any of a large number of natural and synthetic materials, including manure and nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium compounds, spread on or worked into soil to increase its capacity to support plant growth.

Sounds like a lot of organic materials are fertilizeers to me. Where you got the "soluble" part- I dunno. Are you saying that Osmocote is not a fertilizer either?

"only that it provides a consistent, measurable quantity (percentage by volume)"

Percentage by volume? Does that mean that when I calculate the amount of N in a 20 lb bag of 21-0-0 by multiplying 20 by .21 to get 4.2, I'm not coming up with the correct answer since I'm using it as percentage by weight?

If so, how do I go about doing the calculation correctly?

Yes, that 20 pound bag has 21% of the bag as nitrogen or 4.2 pounds of nitrogen. So if you needed to spread 1 pound per 100 square feet and you had a 200 square foot garden, it would take 1/2 the bag.

Marie

gardengal, what you said is what I said.

kimmsr 4,

I think you need to revisit the definition of "oxymoron" because you are obviously interpreting it's definition incorrectly.

...so this whole "fertilizer" thing is really only about 1/2 century old.
Absolutely incorrect. The term fertilizer has been around since at least 1661 documented by the author Kent Worthies.

The definition of fertilizer includes the following:
1. One who or that which fertilizes (land).
2. An agent of fertilization in plants.

To fertilize means:
1. To make fertile; to enrich. To render productive. lit. and fig.

The term "fertilizer" has absolutely nothing to do with "solubility" as you keep insisting.
The only thing ...1/2 century old is the creation of the chemical version of fertilizer.

The term "organic fertilizer" is not an oxymoron because they are not a contradiction in terms. Deafening silence and mournful optimist are oxymorons.

[ gardengal48 said on Sun, May 6, 07 at 10:09 ]
The persistance of the notion that organically derived fertilizers is an oxymoron is just plain silly.

[ kimmsr said on Mon, May 7, 07 at 7:17 ]
gardengal, what you said is what I said.

Now that's is closer to an oxymoron! LOL!

The Natural Resources Conservation Service, even when it was the Soil Conservation Service, recognizes that the single biggest problem with soils in the USA is lack of organic matter,"
Kimmsr

I've reported several times that I spent 2 years reading about 2500 abstracts or full reports from the USDA about humus. Almost every one of these studies came to the same conclusion, that the soil must have organic matter to grow well. The addition of NPK regardless of how itÂs labeled may give short-term results but it is like being on drugs you canÂt get off of and the soil is never able to do its job. This labeling thing is just a truth in advertising thing; it does say what is in the bag but not how it affects the soil or mainly the long-term ability of the soil to produce growth.

I was in the fertilizer business and everything you think you know isnÂt so, they the fertilizer industry works hard to control its profit leading to some confusing things all the way to outright lies about fertilizer. The industry works very hard to keep us using chemical fertilizer to protect their business, nothing wrong with free enterprise but we donÂt have to buy all the BS.

And, it not as simple as that, nothing is!

Hey esther_opal,

Have a question for you, could you message me directly please by clicking on my page?

Thanks!

The most fertilizer sold in the US is in bags, you have the analysis of the NPK and anything else they are putting in the bag to entice you to buy the product.

What is not often if ever mentioned is the inert part or what is called the carrier. We used lime stone rock. If you are in an area that has basic soil then you may be adding lime every time you apply bagged NPK, which may complicate the problem you already have.

Gardengal points out accurately that the law requires the NPK is listed on the bag but nothing else, which may be more important than the NPK component.