I was taught to read the N-P-K as "Up - Down - All Around".....

That being said, i do not use fertilizers, i "feed" only with compost and the castings i harvest from my worm bin. My theory is that mother nature doesnt add any inputs she just recycles whats already there.

Those ratios don't seem to matter a lot. Think of ferts as pro forma remedies instead of well calculated formulas, sorta like those old little red one-a-day vitamins: "just in case". Have you thought about single nutrient amendments? There you would effectively make your own ratios and could treat your plants for what they're showing as needing, would be working long-term, would be able to use it on all plants, and could easily stay within the boundaries of organics (if that's important to you) without any sweat.

Thanks for this idea, grubby_AZ. It would be a good way to learn.

Since you are already thinking along that line,here's something else to keep in mind. The numbers on a container are % of total weight. In your case if the bottle contents (net wt.) weighed 130 oz (about 1 gallon), you would have 0.013 oz N , 0.39 oz P ,and 0.91 oz K. If you bought a typical 320 oz (20 Lb) bag of dry organic plant food, the analysis would be 6-2-2 which equates to 19 oz N,,,,,6.5 oz P,,,,,,6,5 oz K. Both may contain trace elements but the % is similar. Typical retail for 20 Lb bag is $20. Typical retail for a gallon of liquid is near the same if not more. Point being,if you need to buy plant food for a single plant in your landscape,buy bagged. If you don't need the intire bag for that plant,spike the compost pile or put left over on the lawn. Did I mention liquid plant food is a rip off regardless what the label says about bigger,sweeter fruit or other sales pitchs.

What does the soil need to feed that plant?

Many states have banned the sale of phosphorus containing fertilizers because that is contributing to the bloom of toxic algae in many lakes and ponds.

All plants need balanced nutrients in the soil and most need a soil that is well endowed with organic matter that is evenly moist but well drained. Think less about some "stuff" to throw at the plant and more about the soil that plant is growing in.

kimmq is kimmsr

"A bit beyond the scope of the OP's question, sorry for the tangent."

I'm glad you posted it. That's EPA flapdoodle with loopholes so large and numerous it wouldn't impede air traffic at LaGuardia.

"That's EPA flapdoodle with loopholes so large and numerous it wouldn't impede air traffic at LaGuardia."

Would you care to elaborate on that statement? As well as "liquid plant food is a rip off ". While everyone is entitled to their own opinion, making such broad, unsubstantiated statements as these without any sort of supporting data is a bit specious. And difficult to take seriously.

"A friend suggested I might want to get some flower fertilizer for my Cardinal Climber vine,"

Why? What characteristics of the vine indicate that fertilizer is needed?

Yes, that IS the question, isn't it? The plant seems to have enough leaf growth (on the trellis) to support flowers but there's been very little yet. Ironically, she made the suggestion last Friday when there'd been NO flowers. Then I woke up Saturday morning and the first flower had appeared. And another Sunday, and another Monday. But nothing since then.

Maybe everything's fine and on course. That area only gets afternoon sun and maybe that's the primary cause of the relative flowerlessness.

Too bad that like Morning Glory the flowers last exactly one day.

Remembering which nutrient does what is easy, if you'll remember thissimplephrase: "up,down,all around"

up:Nitrogen promotes top growth
down:Phosphorus promotes good roots
all around:Potassium benefits the whole plant

Read more:http://davesgarden.com/guides/terms/go/610/#ixzz3k46d8cMH

gardengal, third graders know $20 for 1.3 oz of anything is ripoff compared to 32 oz for $20. No data required to figure that one out. Data is what EPA generates to justify their own existence. Your ideology is different to mine but that's just how the mop flops.

Are you sure about that? Since the application rate of dry versus liquid fertilizers is very different it's a bit of a leap to assume that the smaller product amount is not as cost effective as the dry. Liquid fertilizers are typically concentrated forms that must be diluted to the appropriate rate (as labeled) so it is just as likely - in your hypothetical world - that coverage will be equal to or even possibly exceed that of a dry, granular fertilizer. Ergo, the rip-off is in your mind only, not in reality.

And if you took the time to read the previously attached link, the EPA was mentioned only very tangentially. That was information complied from state - not federal - legislation. So I guess that means that whatever individual state agency was involved in coming to the conclusion that phosphorus pollution was an issue in that area is a source of "flapdoodle" as well?

I'm not at all sure it has anything to do with ideology. It is more a matter of being able to read and interpret what one is reading with a some small degree of accuracy.

It was actually a report from a state legislative research person, probably requested by legislators who were considering regulating phosphorus because, oh, I don't know, their rivers and estuaries and bays are polluted? It was simply a summary indicating some states have made laws, and that many of them have exemptions allowing P to be used when necessary. I was pleasantly surprised to see that part, it seemed like common sense. I don't see how you get 'flapdoodle' (regardless of who you attribute it to) out of this. You clearly have a chip on your shoulder about EPA, it seems.

Ironically, I only spent the time looking it up because kimmsr keeps claiming states are banning P fertilizer, so I wanted to find out for myself. Turns out he's right, I decide to point it out publicly (to give fair credit where credit is due), and this is the thanks I get, whacked over the head from behind in a case of mistaken identity. LOL

That vine like FULL sun, moderate water, rich well-draining soil, and hot weather. It takes a certain number of hot days to get it to bloom.

If you start outside from seed in Zone 6B you might just now be reaching it's heat limits for blooming. Try it from seed, started indoors a month or so before last frost next year.

You may want to check out these articles by Linda Chalker-Scott . The two articles on the myth of phosphate fertilizers are especially pertinent to this conversation.

Tox,I didn't shoot the messagenger nor whack his head from behind. (; I commend you for posting the link for all to read and decide for themselves what,why and where actions are being taken regarding P. There is only one thing accurate amoung you and Ggals retorts, "I do have a chip on my shoulder about EPA". It is for good reason after many dealings with them over the past 25 years. I was never fined nor disciplined but only after hours up on hours of researce and preparation plus legal expenses that would bankrupted other businesses. Setting that aside for the moment,the term "ban"was bandied about here and in the document in the link. The correct term is regulated, all togeather now, r-e-g-u-l-a-t-e-d, there's a huge difference between baned and regulated. Within that document the terms are used as if they are innerchangable. Switching/substituting words is only one trick used by those drinking the kool-aid. Works to. That's point#1. Moving on,those regulations are desighned (as I've found most to be) to be selectivly applied and inforced against one's enemies. I handed two huge corprations to EPA on a silver platter and they did nothing. Both outfits were doing exactly what smaller companies were closed over. Another very effective tatic used by those striving to lead men about by the nose. Point #2 Taking the words in that link at face value,the kid at the retailer must ask each coustomer what their intent is for the fertilizer. If he give wrong answer,is the kid supposed to refuse selling the product? Suppose the customer answers with an approved use and later changes his mind. Are we to believe he will apply for a permit,dispose as hazardous waste,go back to store for a refund or do as he pleases? Assuming he does the latter ( and we know he will) do you believe any agency has resources in place to seek out law breakers and punish them? Point #3 As loose as that linked document is written it is a total waste of time to even write such up. Do you not see the loopholes? Aaah but what if people do the right thing,therby making inforcement unnessary? PUT THAT KOOL-AID DOWN RIGHT THIS MINUTE,you and I both know few do the right thing. Otherwise why so many laws? Point #4.

Now back to Ggals assertions about cost and % neutrents. Are my mathematics wrong or was that only throwed in because of my stance on worthless laws? Seriously,does anyone believe it's majic in a bottle as the manufacture says? Ask the man with the apron a your local farm and garden which is the better buy. I can't believe this is in contention and would not continue but the most asked on houzz is "what is best".

I'm not sure anyone was making the assumption that a liquid fertilizer was "magic in a bottle". Where one arrived at that determination is a bit of a mystery. Liquid fertilizers DO have their applications - there are situations where the use of a standard dry or granular fertilizer is just not practical or efficient. And if the cost was so out of whack with a granular product, why would so many lawn care and turf management companies - where the bottom line is always in the forefront of consideration - now be opting for liquid fertilizer applications?

Comparing liquid to granular/dry fertilizers is a bit of an apples and oranges situation - they are applied differently and at different rates and they work differently. But if one were to make a rough comparison - and in light of the OP's question - a higher P, so-called "bloom booster" fertilizer, let's consider this:

DRY : Vigoro 'Bold Blooms' 10-15-10, 3.5 lbs.; Recommended application rate 1.5 tsp per plant (annuals or perennials). Total # of individual applications per package = 224. Cost $7.00 (rounded)

LIQUID: Dyna Gro 'Liquid Grow' concentrate 7-9-5, 1 pint: Recommended application rate 1/4 tsp per gallon. Total # of gallons of appliable diluted fertilizer per pint bottle = 384. Cost $9.00 (rounded).

Given the differences involved in application (scratching in the granular versus watering in the liquid), it would appear that the cost per application is about the same, if not a bit higher for the granular (does each annual or perennial actually need an entire gallon of water.....probably not). So tell me, where is the big rip-off??

11 states have banned, or restricted, the use of Phosphorus fertilizers because of concerns of toxic algae growing in lakes and ponds. The algae does not build up in moving water, rivers, stream, etc.

Last summer Toledo, Ohio had to stop using its municipal water because of this toxic algae build up in Lake Erie and it is there again this yea but changes to the water treatment system evidently is helping.

https://www.cga.ct.gov/2012/rpt/2012-R-0076.htm

kimmq is kimmsr