What made you decide your plants need it? What are you using for a soil and a fertilizer? No plant CAN benefit from it unless there is a deficiency of one or the other element, and in some cases it may not be a plus even if the plant IS deficient in one of the elements.

There is no substitute for a sound nutritional program that supplies all the essential elements a plant uses to grow normally, in as close to the same ratio at which the plant actually USES those elements as possible, and in a concentration high enough to ensure there will be no deficiencies yet low enough that it doesn't impair the plants ability to take up water and the nutrients dissolved in water. That's very easy to do, but also easy to mess up by adding a little extra this & that or using fertilizers with NPK ratios that vary significantly from what the plant actually uses.

Al

I use it (have used it for several years) and have been satisified with the results. I use it on almost all my plants, especially water hogs like brugs.

I'm not being a s/a - this is conversational ..... I have not used it for longer than several years, and have been satisfied with the results ...... so where does that leave us? The logical thought is to try to determine when or why it might or might not be useful.

We know with certainty it has no potential to benefit, only limit, if there is already an adequate/available supply of Ca/Mg in the soil, which is true of all the nutrients. Not only would an excess be potentially limiting because it raises EC/TDS without adding anything the plant can use, but the presence of excess Ca/Mg has the potential to limit uptake of K, Fe, B, and P.

Plants use nutrients in a very specific ratio. That ratio doesn't vary much from plant to plant or during various parts of the growth cycle. Ideally, you would be supplying nutrients in the same ratio as that in which the plant uses them. This is the most efficient way of fertilizing. Adding a little extra Ca because it lends strength to cells, or extra Mg because it plays an important part in the photosynthetic process, or Fe because it can make plants greener ..... is not helpful - the key word being 'extra'.

The way I think, if I had reason to believe I had a plant with both a Ca and Mg deficiency, then the addition of the product might be justified, but it would have to be BOTH. If I suspected a Ca deficiency, I'd probably use gypsum or powdered CaCO3. If I suspected a Mg deficiency, my go to product would be Epsom salts (MgSO4). If you use the product w/o both Ca/Mg being deficient, it's a certainty you're unnecessarily raising the EC/TDS of the soil solution.

Additionally, if the deficiency of either Ca OR Mg is antagonistic, that is to say an abundance of one is causing a deficiency of the other due to the more abundant nutrient out-competing the other for attachment sites on colloidal surfaces (in the soil), it's unlikely that you CAN correct the deficiency with Cal/Mag, no matter how much you use.

I don't think a good case can be made for its use if A) you're using a commercially prepared potting soil B) you made your own soil and used an adequate amount of dolomite in making it C) your fertilizer contains EITHER Ca or Mg D) you're using the gritty mix and used gypsum as a Ca source because your chosen fertilizer doesn't contain Ca.

What I said wasn't an attempt to change your mind, K. I'm happy if you're happy. I do think it's a good idea for others entertaining the use of the product to get a feeling for how narrow the parameters have to be for it to be effective, though. I think the greatest opportunity for it to be used effectively is in hydroponic applications where the grower has absolute and precise control over the amount of Ca/Mg he is supplying.

Al

I appreciate all of the feedback and will study it in great depth.
I am not a horticulturist by any means, just a self taught gardener open to learning what I can.
The issue with a big part of this, is that unless you have your soil tested, one hopes that what you are using is appropriate to your plants needs.
You are at the mercy of the fertilizer companies to produce a good fertilizer and not one full of fillers. I believe that the majority of people are using a balanced fertilizer on all of their plants, no matter what Genus.
I am not questioning the plants utilization process of different elements,
but sometimes all we can go by are what evidence is apparent with each plant (physical characteristics and appearance).
It is a proven fact that not all fertilizers are similar or the same if living in different parts of the world.
NPK elements listed are as stated, but not the same here as apposed to
Australia, UK, etc.
Thank you tapla. I do respect you as you are very knowledgeable in these matters.
Rick

When I saw you're in zone 7, I assumed you were talking about containerized plants, and for that, no nutritional analysis is required for the hobby grower to make good decisions about nutritional supplementation. The hobby grower would do well to focus on the soils structural stability and it's ability to provide good aeration for the intended life of the planting, forgetting about any nutrition he might build into the soil because it's so easy to meet the plants nutritional requirements from a jug or box.

With few exceptions, we can count on plants to use about 16 parts of P, and 62 parts of K, for every 100 parts of N used. That will be the same the world over. The ratio doesn't vary much at all, only the amount of nutrients (total) varies significantly.

Generally speaking, balanced fertilizers are better than nothing for container culture, but will always supply more P and K than the plant can use in relation to the amount of N used. The fertilizer RATIO that comes closest to supplying the amounts of NPK used by the average plant is 3:1:2. When the factoring is done for the fact that P is measured as P2O5 and as K2O, you'll find that fertilizers with 3:1:2 ratios (24-8-16, 12-4-8, 9-3-6) all supply very close to that 16 parts of P and 62 parts of K per 100 parts of N that plants actually use. These fertilizers offer a distinct advantage because the allow the grower to fertilize at the lowest o/a concentrations of fertilizer (TDS/EC) possible without having a nutritional deficiency.

Most growers are very poor observers, and the less we understand what we're seeing, the more apt we are to try to come up with a reason for what we're seeing. Sometimes we're totally off the mark, but still blissfully content. Grower A might be perfectly content with how his plants look and grow because it's the best they've ever looked, but that doesn't mean that they can't look better. There is an advantage in understanding that anything beyond or short of just the right amount of any one or combination of nutrients has ONLY the potential to limit. From that, we can see we have a vested interest in striving to ensure that all the essential nutrients are available at all times at a favorable concentration and in a favorable ratio, that, being the ratio that mimics the plants actual usage as closely as possible. I'll add the caveat: unless we are trying to manipulate the plant, which is most often accomplished by REDUCING the amount of N plants are getting in relation to the other elements.

Very simply put, it's hard to go wrong with or improve on a fertilizer like Foliage-Pro 9-3-6. It provides ALL the essential nutrients plants use, at the average ratio at which they are used, and at a favorable ratio to each other. Good nutrition is THAT simple. Combine that fertilizer with a soil that allows you to flush the soil regularly to keep the ratio from becoming skewed, fertilize often at low doses, .... and your nutritional concerns are 95% behind you.

Al

I make my own potting mixes and use a few micro nutrients in addition to fertilizers as well as ProTekt. I've been using these for a number of years and my plants do extremely well. Charles asked if anyone used the CalMag and I responded. I enjoy reading your posts and have found them very informative. I use what works for me.

It's all good, K. I'm not interested in trying to change the minds of someone who feels comfortable they have a good thing going. My only interest is in seeing that others have the information they need to make an informed decision.

For others following: logically speaking, if growers A uses Cal/Mag with good results, and Grower B doesn't use Cal/Mag but still has good results, we can't say that Cal/Mag is necessary (if we want to achieve good results); but we CAN say it's unnecessary.

My experience is that when people start adding elements/compounds targeted specifically at increasing the presence of one or two nutrients only, more often than not the potential for limitation far outweighs the potential for increase in growth or vitality. The simple fact is, the product can't/won't help you unless it's actually fixing a deficiency of Ca/Mg, AND that deficiency is the primary limiting factor. IOW, if a deficiency of N or P or K or any other nutrient is limiting growth, additional applications of Cal/Mag can only be additionally limiting. The best way to supply nutrients is in a very specific ratio that comes as close as possible to mimicking what the plant uses; and, adding a little extra this and that has very little potential for gain, but a considerable potential to limit.

Al

It is good that we have a diverse group on this site. I enjoy reading everything to hopefully learn as much as I can.
There has been a lot of study on the Adeniums requirements (majority in containers) and it is found that they require a higher element in Potassium than what the majority of fertilizers that I can find have. What is recommended by some is 10-16-38 with micronutrients and this is next to impossible to find here in Canada. Others use a Orchid Bloom fertilizer, but what they find in Australia has completely different levels of NPK than what a similarly named product here will have. It seems that the Phosphorus is jacked up.
I admit, I purchase complete fertilizers in hopes that they will give the desired results. I do believe that not all plants require the same feeding requirements.
Most of us continue using what has worked in the past and do not change unless there is a concern in respect to growth or lack there of and overall appearance.
Rick

Most hobby growers don't have the knowledge needed to reason through a sound nutritional program for their plants. Undoubtedly, it's better to rely on someone who DOES have that ability than to rely on advertising hype on the outside of a fertilizer package or on peers who are simply guessing at what might or might not be a good idea, basing those guesses on fragmentary information picked up here & there on the net/forums/...... Plant nutrition is a science, and scientifically, it's very difficult to justify furnishing any plant more P than N, when plants use on average about 6X more N than P (referring to your mention of the 10-16-38, which provides more than 4X the amount of P the plant can use in relation to its N uptake). How can that be justified?

When someone says "It works for me" or "I'm going to continue to do it this way because I feel it's worked well in the past", what does that say other than I accept the results I'm getting as good enough, so I'm not much interested in changing anything. That type of thinking is self-limiting because it doesn't allow for the possibility of growth (of the grower) or that there just might be a better way ..... and there always is. Even if the results someone is achieving in the immediate are the best they've ever been able to achieve, it's still illogical to assume it's the best results that are possible.

Unless there is a genetic aberration, all our plants are programmed to grow well, & they have the potential to become beautiful specimens. Since they are under our direct control, how close they come to reaching the genetic potential with which they are endowed depends on our ability to ELIMINATE those influences that limit our plants' potential. Think about it ..... our plants are equipped with the tools they need to be beautiful and grow well - if only we don't get in their way by forcing them to grow with limitations. As growers, our ability is defined by how able we are to identify and mitigate the effects of limitations, so when science clearly outlines some of the things that are potentially limiting, it's far better to trust settled science and use what we know to avoid limitations than 'go' with what someone feels is 'working for them', or even what we might have decided is working for us and still end up dealing with them.

If you pay attention to how growers think, you'll notice there is a LOT of faulty reasoning presented as fact by a lot of growers in forum settings. I use produce X and I have beautiful plants, therefore I need product X to have beautiful plants, is as faulty as, I cut myself shaving 3 days in a row and on each of those days I shaved before I brushed my teeth, therefore I need to start brushing my teeth before I shave.

In my offerings, you'll never here "It works for me" as a reason for why it will work for you, because there is no reason for you to believe I might be a better observer than you, and because of how little weight "It works for me" actually carries in the scheme of things. So, if I offer advice, you can bet that I can use science to explain exactly why I offered the advice and to justify it. I'm not offended if you ignore the advice or my conclusions and go about growing however you wish - no problem there. Threads like this are a good opportunity to get information out so everyone can consider what's being said, what makes sense and what doesn't, so for that I thank you for the opportunity.

Best luck. Hopefully this little bout of insomnia is at an end & I'll be able to get a wink or 2 before time to rise for work. I'm not trying to get anyone riled - just trying to give you some things to think about.

Al