I don't know P Allen Smith, so I don't have any idea what he uses for fertilizer. But he's right that compost isn't fertilizer. It's a soil amendment.

But since a quality compost created from a wide range of materials will provide virtually all the nutrients and trace elements plants need for healthy growth, there is no reason compost can't be used as a fertilizer. It is the only nutrient source/fertilizer I have used in my garden for the last dozen years or so and to great effect. The only reason compost is not legitimately considered a fertilizer is that 95% of the time it has no quantifiable and labeled NPK valuation, which is the legal requirement for a "fertilizer".

I think many of us tend to get wrapped up in the theory and marketing of "fertilizers" unnecessarily. Unless you are doing heavy annual cropping (i.e., farming), most plants do not have that heavy a nuitrient demand that cannot be satisfied by good soil conditions - the "feed the soil and it will feed the plants" philosophy. It's good to remember that other than the normal accumulation of organic matter (fallen leaves, dead plants and other organic materials), there is no fertilizing occurring in nature: the regular application of OM - often through the use of compost in a home gardening situation - is more than sufficient to replenish necessary soil nutrients.

I wholeheartedly agree with gardengal. I get a great organic-quality compost from a commercial facility in central NC that contains eggshells and food waste. There is nothing that won't fluorish in this stuff! You don't have to add fertilizer or lime- its a one-stop shop that makes gardening so much easier. Mother Nature know what she's doing; the fertilizer companies are just trying to sell a product. Compost is all you need!

"there is no fertilizing occurring in nature"

That isn't exactly true. Nitrogen and sulfur come falling out of the sky. Also, animals will concentrate nutrients and deposit them. Plus soil (and the associated nutrients) move around the landscape. Think of the high fertility of river deltas. Volcanic ash is another example of nature spreading nutrients.

Which is why most of australia is an agricultural dead-zone.

yes with gardengal as well on this one,

amazing what some might say to get attention or interest on the media hey?

all my gardens get feed is like compost, ok i don't have a compost bin so all our kitchen scraps go to the garden (daily if need be), and we use green spoilt hay type mulches which break down and all feeds our gardens with a variety of nutrients, which in turn feeds us.

we find this more natural method also helps not make our vege's in particular attractive to bugs as we pretty much can't add too much nitrogen, all seems to happen in balance.

len

Here is a link that might be useful: len's garden page

Right. Don't use compost for fertilizer. Just use compost, not fertilizer.

:-)

Most of my vegies are growing in raised lasagna beds, in other words in compost with a little soil added. They are growing fabulously well, I do not use any fertilizer per se. Lots of compost makes fertilizer unnecessary is what we are trying to say.

Marcia

Compost is not a fertilizer, it is a soil amendment. To be a fertilizer the product must have enough soluble nutrients to show up in a test, and compost does not have that so it cannot be a fertilizer. P. Allen Smith can be found on PBS, and is a good example of what one can do with apparently unlimited amounts of money.

It's a fertilizer by definition. In fact, most soil amendments are. Anything you add to your soil to increase fertility is fertilizer. Maybe P. Allen Smith needs to get a better dictionary and quit playing a semantics game. Now, whether it's a complete fertilizer or not is a much more arguable question as that depends on it's content and the plants you plan to grow.

The Legal Mumbo Jumbo:

From the 'official Publication No.59 AAPFCO' (Association of American Plant Food Control Officials) -which is what most if not all states base their fertilizer regulations.

Uniform State Fertilizer Bill Section 4 (a)
"Any Substance containing one or more recognized plant nutrient(s) which is used for its plant nutrient content and which is designed for use or claimed to have value in promoting plant growth, except unmanipulated animal and vegetable manures, marl, lime, limestone, wood ashes and other products exempted by regulation by the Â"

My understanding is that even though many states regulate compost along with fertilizers, compost is not considered a fertilizer and cannot make nutrient claims on the label. There has been a push by the compost industry for years to allow labeling compost as fertilizer, but to my knowledge this has not yet happened.

Practically Speaking:

Compost is so low in nutrients on a percentage basis, and is so beneficial to soil physical and biological properties that one could easily make the argument that it is a soil amendment and not a fertilizer. As several posters above said if enough compost is used it can provide adequate nutrients, but this is only practical on a small scale such as a home garden. If garden compost rates are extrapolated up to even a small farm one would need millions if not tens of millions of pounds of compost every year. This would not be practical or sustainable.

I'll buy that, Salesman. I'm into organic methods as best for my small daylily garden, and I've shared my mulch scores and finished compost with my mother (who has a daylily farm of about six acres.) She uses what I bring her on her vegetable garden, and looks out over the flowers and shakes her head.

My childhood chore was to "take this out to the compost pile." She knows organic, and happily her answer can be sending my brother on the tractor to the river bottom to bring up scoops of soil/goo up to a new bed.

My little beds are tiny by comparison, totaled maybe 500 sq.ft. In one year they've completely sucked up:

11 bales of old straw
~40 huge bags of old leaves
15 pumpkins
12 cornstalk decorations, and untold ears of Indian corn
~10 gallons of coffee grounds
6 huge bags of neighbor's garden clean-up
endless weeds, trimmings, and garden clean-up of my own
a year's worth of snake cage bedding (will that snake also go to college???)
all a family of four's kithchen waste
endless cardboard/pressboard
as much pee as the men can be coerced into adding :)

And I was thrilled, THRILLED, when the bf found 10 more bags of leaves behind some pegboard leaning against the garage wall.

Well you just show those fertilizer companies a thing or two Jettachic, they cant fool you, don't you buy any fertilizer for your plants.
That'll learn 'em.

The very nature that compost --definitely that which comes from a home-grown one, has dubious amounts of N. P. K...and cant be relied on to act in any particular way for our plants, is a cause to gauge how our plants thrive.

Still, most times, I suppose, a good mixing in of compost can often take the place of using so much fertilizer as long as one realizes they are using it as a general feeding of the soil--not the plant.

I expect that P. Allen Smith has commercial sponsors on his show which may impact on what he recommends.

IMO vegetative garden material such as we throw in the compost wil also encourage good worms to be healthy residents in the soil and they WILL leave fertilizer. In fact if you don't have worms you could buy worm castings to use as a soil amendment. Altho perhaps that's not technically considered fertilizer either.

Anyhow in my book anything that makes for healthier soil is good. That's what a healthy garden has.

The word fertilizer was around before the "Association of American Plant Food Control Officials" or any other association that chooses to attempt to redefine the words in our language. More and more I find that the US is being defined by marketing. Over in the termite thread people are talking about mulch and basing most arguments on what others say while ignoring observable facts. Here, it's not hard to crack a dictionary open. That DOES define words of our language and fertilizer is one of those words. Merriam-Webster: a substance used to make soil more fertile. The problem is that ag companies have convinced the populace that synthetics are the only real fertilizers when the word has been in use longer than they have been in business. Fertilzersalesman, I wonder what the Chinese were doing for so long with their advance agriculture before "fertilizer". They didn't grow to the population they have today by cropping out every 40 or less years like the US tended to do until fairly recently. They did it by using organic means since that was the only means. Compost, manure, cover crops, etc. Don't get me wrong. . . I'm not anti synthetics. I am 100% behind using new technology to advance human endeavor as long as they don't have a strong potential to lead to human problems later.

Anyway, unless I'm missing something none of these associations or individuals like this P. Allen Smith has the authority to redefine old words. Maybe invent new ones. Fertilizer isn't a hard concept with a complex definition. If it increases fertility it's fertilizer.

joe, you are certainly correct in the theoretical sense. However, the dictionary is not always the final word. In the US (as well as in many other countries), fertilizers - like pesticides - are governed by state and federal regulations and these come with their own set of legal definitions. And these governing authorities DO have the power to "redefine old words". To legally be considered a 'fertilizer', the substance must contain at least one of the three primary plant nutrients and that nutrient(s) must be presented under a guaranteed analysis of percentage content clearly labeled under a designated format. Like pesticides, fertilizer lables are legal documents with regulated standards and wording that must be met. Organic or synthetic origin is immaterial, as is solubility or "immediate availability". It is the NPK guaranteed analysis presented in a specified format that is critical.

Given these requirements, compost or other commonly accepted soil amendments are not legally considered fertilizers even though they fit the dictionary definition. Not because they lack nutrient content but because they generally are not able to present a guaranteed analysis under prescribed format. In the case of compost, the guaranteed analysis is lacking due to a) the huge range of ingredients and variability of the finished product resulting in inconsistancy of nutrient content and b) the lack of testing of every single batch to produce a quantifiable and legally supportable guaranteed analysis.

There is also an established definition of a "complete" fertilizer - a product that provides all three of the primary plant nutrients; N, P and K. Were it able to come with a guaranteed analysis, compost would certainly qualify as a complete fertilizer. While nutrient content may be low compared to many synthetics (as well as a number of prepared organic fertilizers), compost is a fine and highly desirable organic source of these macronutrients as well as virtually all the micronutrients and, depending on ingredients, a wide variety of desirable trace elements also. So while not legally considered a fertilizer, compost certainly offers the same benefits that commercial fertilzers do (as well as many other beneficial properties) and can be used in exactly the same manner and to the same purpose by home gardeners.

First of all, no the government DOESN'T have the authority to redefine words. They only have the authority to define what THEY will accept as a standard. Standards which are constantly changing. And those standards only apply to commercial product. The thread isn't about that. The government doesn't define most herbal remedies as medicines, either. That doesn't take away the fact that they are most certainly medicines by definition. They help people to heal, overcome injury, etc. Just because the government has regulated what THEY consider medicine doesn't mean I'm so naive to believe that herbs have been medicine for thousands of years just like compost has been fertilizer for thousands of years and no government regulation has the power to change that very obvious fact. So changing your definition because you feel the government has the authority to do so is just plain ridiculous unless you have to conform to their statements for the simple fact of staying in business.

The thread was never about whether compost can be called fertilizer under government regulations. It was about whether it can be used as one. Plenty of us have proven year after year after year that yes, it can be used as a fertilizer because it increases soil fertility.

There are many gardeners of the belief that plant specific fertilizing is unnecessary. They believe that feeding the soil is the best way to grow a garden. Therefore, feeding the soil with compost or manure or the like is all you need. So, in sense compost is fertilizer; it is just not plant specific. Feed your soil and your garden will reward you. I do not 'fertilize' with products labeled as fertilizer. I give the soil alfalfa in the spring, then manure and other compost in the fall. That along with a nice layer of mulch is all I do and my garden is the best it has ever been. Oh, and one more thing, I always plant with mycorrizhae.

The research of Roland Bunch and others who have studied ecological soil management has shown that roots need constant access to low levels of all nutrients (as provided by compost, and by feeding the soil), rather than spikes of specific nutrients (as provided by ferts, especially synthetics).

Bunch calls this the Nutrient Access Concept of soil fertility, as opposed to the conventional Nutrient Quantity Concept (which discounts the contribution of soil microbiology).

His research focus was tropical soils all over the world, but the principles he found mimic the way a forest manages soils: maximize organic matter production (cover crops, intensive planting, intercropping), keep soil covered with mulch, use zero tillage, maintain biological diversity, and feed plants through the mulch (rather than removing mulch and digging any needed nutrients into the soil).

The early adherants of what Sir Albert Howard taught us knew what Bunch has found, back then, however, the adherants of Leibig held sway and convinced every one that you needed to dump large amounts of synthetic plant foods, fertilizers, on your soil to grow good plants.
Legally compost connot be sold as fertilizer because you cannot find the 3 main nutrients, Nitrogen, Phosphorus, or Potash by the tests used since those plant nutrients are not that readily available, however joe.jr is right in his inane arguments about the semantics involved.

Inane arguments? Harsh.

I guess I'm not so easily swayed by tests with numbers if the plants outside are proving there are plenty of "readily available" nutrients in the soil I use only compost in.

So, when did the word fertilizer become the word nutrients? Fertilizer isn't nutrients. Though nutrients can be (and usually are) fertilizers. Fertilizer (as I have mentioned in my inane arguments) is that which increases fertility. This includes soil amendments that adjust pH to increase nutrient uptake. An addition of nutrients doesn't make the ground fertile if the pH causes nutrient lockout. Thus, even MG loses it's fertilizer status because it isn't increasing fertility. I guess hydroponics has taught me a lot about the science of what really makes a fertilizer and what is fluff and misconception out there largely influenced by commercialism. Oh, and there are a lot of people that use compost tea as a hydroponic nutrient solution. Again, proof that it's a fertilizer because it's the ONLY thing allowing for fertility in the plants. Which also knocks out the argument (which has surprisingly not been made here yet) that compost isn't a fertilizer but rather attracts worms to fertilize the soil. I know worms add to it and are a great benefit, but there are no worms in hyrdo applications. For nutrients not being readily available, those plants seem to be thriving. Personally, I only use compost tea as a supplement. Guess plants don't care about our definitive human test results and changing definitions.

Joe,

The legal definition of fertilizer did not come about as part of a Âcommercialism conspiracy. The objective was to protect consumers from fraudulent claims. I have to deal with AAPFCO and their regulations and I assure you they do not cater to fertilizer manufacturers. Until you start bagging and selling your compost you really have no need to concern yourself with the semantics of fertilizer labeling regulations and should refer to compost as fertilizer to your hearts content.

"Legally compost cannot be sold as fertilizer because you cannot find the 3 main nutrients, Nitrogen, Phosphorus, or Potash by the tests used since those plant nutrients are not that readily available"

-Kimmsr, this is completely false. Total (as opposed to soluble or available) N, P, K can be and is regularly tested in organic materials such as compost and manure. The reason compost is not considered fertilizer is because the total content is too low. For example you can test sawdust and find low levels of N, P, K, and if added to soil these nutrients will eventually become available. However, I would not consider sawdust a Âfertilizer. It would be an amendment as is rock dust and a whole lot of other low nutrient materials people add to their soils. Fair or not, compost gets lumped into the amendment category.

Well, since I started this thread, I must tell you'all that I consider my compost pile to be fertilizer in the making!
So far, I have one load of chicken house cleanings, shavings and droppings, and 2 loads of horse manure. This is in addition to coffee grounds, shredded paper/cardboard, straw, lots of grass clippings, kitchen scraps and garden cleanings. All built inside a straw bale pile that will be added to the pile if or when it breaks down.
So there, Mr. Smith--I have fertilizer.(and compost)
Thanks everyone, lots of good info.

Fertilizersalesman, I never said once anything concerning a conspiracy. Nice attempt to twist my words and my meaning. I was referring 100% to marketing and the very real fact that much of American "knowledge" is influenced by such marketing. I never once claimed there is a commercialism conspiracy. I simply understand marketing. Get people to believe you hold the only answers and you will always be in charge. Convince people you are the expert on a subject and they will often abandon all reason and defer to you from then on. It's a basic principle applied in military, politics, business, and even parenting.

Maybe you are ignorant of the very real fact that a large number of lobbyists are corporate representatives that are pushing bills that define what can be sold as what in order to give them strategic and financial advantages. It sure as heck isn't because they feel like just hanging out in DC. So don't tell me they (corporations or government. . . well, greedy people in general) are solely working to protect the consumer and expect me to believe that. Greedy, corrupt people influence any large organization (business or government) because it's easier to do and they are cut throat enough to get to the decision making spots. That's one reason why the most honest of businesses tend to be the ones that still have the original owner running it that built from the ground up. So, when you read a definition put out by somebody trying to regulate (which translates to restrict) what is what despite longstanding definitions, you must rely on your intellect and separate the wheat from the chaff rather than simply follow like a complete boob. Unless, of course, you have something to gain from it . . . I wonder what a person in fertilizer sales stands to lose if people stop buying commercial fertilizers? I don't know. But I am sure that person would have everything to gain by convincing people that someone that uses intellect rather than following blindly is a conspiracy theorist.

Joe,

I am going to have to disagree with you. Although there is little question that organizations whether private or government tend to promote themselves, in my opinion neither has anything to gain by classifying compost as an amendment rather than a fertilizer. Go to a garden center and read the label on compost. It will describe the contents as the greatest thing since sliced bread and that the miraculous growth that will occur cannot be obtained with any other product. That is they are advertising like classic snake oil salesmen and are getting along just fine without using the term Âfertilizer. The sole purpose of AAPFCO is to ensure the accuracy of fertilizer labels. They have nothing to gain by not calling compost fertilizer. They have regulations for compost labeling which are used by many states. My intellect tells me that when one compares the high nutrient content and solubility of conventional synthetic fertilizer to the low and widely variable nutrient content of compost, they are so different that for the sake of clarity they do not classify them together. If I were in charge I would not lump them together either.
PS I donÂt sell conventional fertilizer.

Could you please indicate what brand is advertising like classic snake oil salesmen? Our local garden centers don't carry bagged compost with advertisements. Just a title with a big word that says compost and instructions for mixing. One real example is "New Plant Life" brand out of LaPorte, IN. The only claim they make on the bag is that they make no claims. It's in a little box in the middle. I have some right outside, so I checked. Otherwise, though, the majority of the compost carried is in bulk. As for claims about being the best thing since sliced bread, well I think everyone here has seen that nearly every commercial blend of fertilizer makes those claims and are even now jumping on the "organic" bandwagon and making new claims to appease those against synthetics. Need me to list those brands or are you familiar with what I'm talking about?

What a company has to gain in regard to not classing a compost as fertilizer is not a matter of opinion. It's a fact that when a long time customer realizes that they can provide a better food source and stops buying the fertilizer company's product, the fertilizer company just lost money. Compound that by the thousands of gardeners in this country that have the means to make compost and learn to do it properly. Then you are talking about bigger losses. Then consider the fact that those people's children are being taught to not buy the synthetics and you are talking about an entire generation not buying their products. And further, these companies obviously don't share your opinion but rather have decided to look at the facts considering they have realized they have to market to composters and now are producing "compost starters" and such gimmicks that many new composters are picking up like crazy not realizing that what these companies aren't sharing is that these microbes are easily found in a handful of dirt.

One last thing and I will stop polluting this thread with so much writing. Since some here are concerned about government claims, I encourage you to check out what the EPA has to say about the content of nutrients in compost. Essentially it only proves our government agencies and associations they rely on tend to only contradict themselves.
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/composting/benefits.htm

Joe,

You and I are going to different garden centers. The one I frequent probably had at least a half dozen compost products in glossy colorful plastic bags. Look at miracle grows line for example, one of the companies jumping on the bandwagon. I am not sure by your post if you are in favor of conventional fertilizer companies getting into the organic market or not.

I can certainly see your reasoning, but I do not think the chemical fertilizer companies have anything to fear from home gardeners learning to compost. Despite what you may think the average gardener (and by that I mean anyone who has a yard) is in a continual slide away from traditional gardening practices including composting. Talk to anyone in the retail garden industry and they will tell you that in the old days gardeners were always trying new things and experimenting with different varieties and techniques. Now people want to buy a plant (full grown and blooming), spend 5 minutes planting it, pour in a box or jar of whatever it needs, and if it dies they will never try planting anything again. Yes there may be more interest in organic growing, but overall the trend is to spray a yard into submission. Most people who want to use fewer chemicals are not going to learn what it really takes to grow something; they are simply looking for a bottle labeled organic that will do the same thing as the chemical they had been using. Again, yes, there are real gardening enthusiasts, but they did not get that way because they learned how to compost, rather they got that way because they love it.

You can always amend with compost AND also add fertilizer. I till compost into my garden beds regularly.....along with bone meal, greensand, bat guano, epsom salts, etc.

Hey, Ceresone. That sounds GREAT! I'll bet your garden will look great when you're done with all that..........whatever you call it!
I have about the same and my garden looks better than ever!
Happy composting! Nancy

Buzz,

That is what I do too, great minds thinking alike? :)