Your interpretation of what I said is accurate. I think the most important take-away is that one should never mix the concentrates; and, while I have never had any precipitation issues when adding ProTeKt to a solution already containing 9-3-6, I still plan on rearranging the sequence so the ProTeKt goes into the water first, quick mix, then add the FP 9-3-6. Better to follow the advice from those with lots of letters after their names. I'll also make sure any advice I give in the future re this particular matter reflects the directions given on the label.

Al

Thanks, Al. It looks like your method has been working. I know that occasionally maufacturer labels/instructions do change & wasn’t sure if this was a case of that or not.

The reason I had asked the question in the first place was because I thought I’d seen some prior posts saying that if added in the wrong order nutrients were bound up making them unavailable to the plants. I didn’t want to waste either product.

Their messaging is mixed. My guess is what I originally said was fine, according to the bullet points under the Quick Tips heading below. Here's a screenshot taken minutes ago from their website:

Solubility is the relative ability of a solute to dissolve into a solvent to form a solution, and the solubility of many compounds depends strongly on the pH of the solution. Temperature also plays a significant role, which is why a precipitate forms if you allow FP 9-3-6 to get too cold. Warming the fertilizer and agitating the solution will put the precipitate back into solution ..... but now I've strayed.

A precipitation reaction refers to the formation of an insoluble salt which occurs when two solutions containing soluble salts are combined. The insoluble salt that falls out of solution is known as the precipitate. When you mix ProTeKt with an acid-forming fertilizer containing Calcium, like FP 9-3-6, the precipitation reaction produces Ca3(PO4)2.

My reasoning: Since the only form of soluble Calcium is CaNO3 (calcium nitrate) we know that FP 9-3-6 has CaNO3. CaNO3 and monopotassium phosphate (source of the potassium in ProTeKt) cannot be mixed in the same stock solution at high concentrations w/o a precipitate of insoluble Ca3(PO4)2 (calcium phosphate) forming. So while the term 'bound-up' very well conveys the idea that something is unavailable, it sort of implies that the 'something' was in the ProTekt, but both of the elements/ nutrients that precipitated were ingredients in the FP 9-3-6. Whoda thought it?

Al

Chelates also can be a big difference. Chelated iron being most famous as opposed to the old wives tales of iron nails tossed around a plant. All you really get for that is a ring of rusty nails and possible tetanus!

I'm not sure how that applies to this conversation, but I can say that if someone thinks they need to use an Fe (iron) chelate, probably all they need to do is A) ditch the high-P fertilizer they're using because phosphorous is iron's #1 antagonist. IOW, too much phosphorous causes an iron deficiency, which is only 1 of several good reasons to avoid high-P fertilizers, or B) add enough white vinegar or citric acid to the irrigation water to bring the pH down to 5.0. The lower pH will allow the Fe already in the soil to go back into solution and become available for plant uptake.

It's generally a very poor idea for a grower to focus on supplying 1 or 2 nutrients because (s)he thinks the plant might be suffering a deficiency. Generally, if someone finds need for a chelate it's because of A) a high pH issue, or B) an antagonistic deficiency is in play. In either case, it makes much more sense (and it's cheaper/ easier) to correct the cause than pile on more nutrients. If the fertilizer being used is appropriate and the grower isn't all caught up in trying everything they hear about, hoping it will be the magic elixir that turns a lackluster growing experience around, and the grower is actually using the appropriate fertilizer appropriately, there should be no reason for using chelates for conventional container culture.

Nutrient Supplementation - Objective

Whenever we discuss what is or isn't an appropriate part of the methodology we use to make certain our containerized plants get all the nutrients essential to normal growth and good health, it would be best to consider what the objective actually IS in order to be sure our objectives are on target. It's difficult to argue with the idea that our focus in supplying supplemental nutrition to our plants should be on ensuring all the nutrients plants normally assimilate from the soil are A) IN the soil and available for uptake at all times, B) in the soil in a favorable ratio - that is to say in a ratio that, as close as possible, mimics the ratio at which the plant actually uses the nutrient, C) at a concentration high enough to ensure no nutritional deficiencies, yet still low enough to ensure the plant's ability to take up water, and the nutrients dissolved in that water won't be impeded (by a high concentration of solubles in the soil solution).

At this point, we can accept these premises as worthy goals or argue against them. If accepted, we should then necessarily examine our efforts at supplementation in the light of whether or not our efforts bring us closer to or limit our ability to see these goals implemented.

We'll never arrive at our goals by approaching delivery of nutrients in an 'a little of this and a little of that' fashion, or by using a chelate. Think 'big picture'. If someone 'thinks' they need to supply more magnesium, don't dump enough Epsom salts on the plant to cause a calcium deficiency. Flush the soil of ALL nutrients and apply a high quality fertilizer like FP 9-3-6. In all likelihood, that would leave the grower closer than they've ever been to reaching the real objective of nutritional supplementation for plants.

Al

Palm people you might have noticed push high Magnesium use as the answer for certain palms like the Majesty,Ravenea rivularis.

Later will look at the label of Vigoro to see if it matches up with FP 9-3-6.

Most "palm" fertilizers contain more K than usual, not Mg. It's also true that many people swear by Superthrive, but that doesn't change the fact that Superthrive has essentially been called and proven to be snake oil by virtually all who have actually tested it. Many also swear by dosing with Epsom salts for its Mg whenever a plant looks chlorotic. The Epsom salts will cure the symptom of chlorosis, but will not fix the deficiency underlying the chlorosis if the chlorosis is caused by lack of N or Fe, the most common causes of chlorotic foliage. In fact, it will MASK the symptoms of actual deficiencies, leaving the grower and plant in a more tenuous state than before dosing with Mg. If dosing with anything meant to increase the level of Mg (or any other nutrient) w/o increasing the level of all other nutrients so the o/a ratio of nutrients in the soil solution mimics as closely as possible the ratio at which the plant actually USES the nutrients, is to be considered helpful, the most serious limiting factor must be a Mg deficiency, or, the Ca:Mg ratio must favor Ca by a ratio greater than 5:1. Unfortunately, not 1 in 10,000 hobby growers is capable of making that determination w/o sending plant parts to a testing lab for a tissue analysis, and that's probably being generous.

I'm not sure why you keep introducing all these new off-the-wall topics that don't make sense, but I am sure you're operating at well beyond the limits of your knowledge, and that benefits no one.

Al

Sorry Dr. Manhattan. But you just said Superthrive is junk and yet the palm experts don't agree with you and then of course Vigoro is nearly the same as the much more expensive fert you are pushing as a cure all for every plant species. THAT is a little suspicious.

But hey, it America.

The Superthrive label lists only ".09% Vitamin B1; .048% 1-Napthyl acetic acid." You needn't take my word for the snake oil status of the product, you can see what Linda Chalker-Scott Ph,D says about it. Linda has made her reputation dispelling the horticultural myths parroted by those who know not of what they speak. You can compare what she says Right Here or see more shots fired across the product's bowin this PDF file(even though it's not mentioned specifically), then compare what I wrote about it upthread ..... and keep in mind I wrote the article upthread before she published her's. It seems we both came down on the same page.

"Vigoro is nearly the same as the much more expensive fert you are pushing as a cure all for every plant species." Funny - not even close. First, It costs less than $.02 (two cents) for enough 9-3-6 to make a gallon of solution. How much cheaper can it get and how much can you save? Then, the term 'Vigoro' is ambiguous because it covers dozens of different fertilizers. IF you're talking about Vigoro's PALM fertilizer, as you were upthread, the striking differences are Foliage-Pro's NPK %s are 9-3-6 where V-palm 8-4-8, V-palm entirely lacks calcium, none there, and it derives all of it's N from urea or ammoniacal sources, both of which put any plants that get over-watered at risk for ammonium toxicity; whereas, Foliage-Pro contains ALL nutrients essential to normal growth, and derives more than 2/3 of its N from nitrate sources and none from urea. Those are very significant set-aparts that anyone with a basic working knowledge of the nutritional needs of plants should have been aware of before making misleading statements.

Al

The destroyer of weeds, thistles and thorns is a benefactor, whether he soweth grain or not. ~ Robert Ingersoll

Urea has since ancient times been used to fertilize plants. In fact, North Korea has asked its people in now 2021, to donate urine to make fertilisers to feed the country.

Many roads to the same place.

Looks like we've come to the point where, if I said that 20 foot chasm should be crossed in a single leap, you'd be compelled to argue it should be done in two.

Al

By coincidence a fellow plant guy told me that he likes Carl's pool palm fertilizer and if he can't get that,he will use Palmgain.

I have to ask him if he's heard of Foliage pro.

You have to admit- telling people that ONE type or brand fertilizer is good for the whole horticultural world of plants is going to get some scepticism.

Apologies for hijacking your thread Tyler but a closer reading of everything Al has written makes me need to ask one question: I've noticed chlorosis in my roses but reading the internet a while back, I came to the conclusion that soil pH is wrong, mostly because I built the bed with bricks and mortar a few years ago before I knew how bad of an alkaliniser cement is for soil and didn't clean excess or treat the mortar before adding the soil and roses.

Al, you said something about vinegar and water - would this be appropriate to use for my roses and at what concentration? I haven't fertilised or added the obligatory epsom salts "because roses love Epsom salts" as I see the effect of the mortar as being the biggest problem there

Instead of twisting and misrepresenting my words to your benefit in order to save face, let's look at what I actually said:

"I'm actually grateful FP 9-3-6 is available, and recommend it highly as the 'go to' fertilizer for containerized plants. If you run across a plant (hibiscus, tomato, ....) that is known to do better with a seriously different ratio, it's easy to doctor. Usually, the only thing needed to cover all bases is Dyna-Gro's ProTeKt 0-0-3, which provides potassium, and silicon in opalescent form, which makes a remarkable difference insofar as how well the plant tolerates heat cold, moisture extremes, and insect/ disease pathogens."

I've NEVER said FP 9-3-6 is appropriate for all plants, not once in all the years I've recommended it. It's not my habit to make vague, general, or all-encompassing statements in order to provide myself with plenty of wiggle room in case I'm questioned, and you've witnessed my willingness to qualify and explain to the nth degree anything I say. I'm always happy to take complete responsibility for what I say, but I can't be responsible for what you understand. You prefer to keep changing the subject in hope no one will notice you provided nothing in the way of support for your claims.

I do commonly mention that Foliage-Pro 9-3-6 IS appropriate for a very high % of the plants we normally grow as houseplants; and, that is absolutely true. I DO use it for everything I grow because it's a superb product, but that I use it for everything should not be taken to mean I don't modify it when it's appropriate to do so.

And why would you insist on continuing to circle around to "palm" fertilizers in a thread about DRs?

Al

First test the soil PH. Because it's possible rains and watering has leached the cement after a few years. It could very well be the cause,but test to make sure.

White vinegar works great for container media which has a low bulk density (BD) compared to mineral soils. The high BD of mineral soils has a large influence on mineral soils' buffering capacity, so it's unlikely you'll gain any appreciable reduction in pH using vinegar. You'll likely need to use elemental sulfur or whatever sulfide is most appropriate. If you really have a soft spot for the roses, it would be a good idea to take several soil samples from the bed, combine them, mix well, and send in a sample of the combination of the several samples. You'll get definitive directions insofar as how much of what chemicals are required to balance the soil's nutritional contents and pH.

I've had the same pH issues with the hypertufa troughs/ containers I make. I generally make them in the summer, then allow them to sit out in the weather until the following spring. That strategy hasn't yet left me wondering about pH issues because of visual cues the plants provide, so given the length of time between building the bed and now, it would seem like you should be close to the potential for upward creep of pH being neutralized. It almost makes me wonder if something else (other than soil pH) might be the spoiler. A lot of cultural influences can cause chlorosis.

I just noticed the "S Africa" part of your username, which leaves me wondering how arid it is where you live?

Al

Thanks, Al. I'm in Johannesburg, we actually have high summer rainfall but like the southwestern desert areas in USA, it all falls at once because most of our rain comes from thunderstorms. Runoff is extremely high. The desert is also only 5-600kms away on the Western side but on the other hand, if tropical cyclones hit the East, it can rain for a few weeks at a time so we alternate between severe heat and desert winds and tropical rainforest conditions in summer. DRs are native to the Eastern half of my country.

Are you suggesting then that it's not the mortar but perhaps excessive nutrient leaching? Our native soils are poor and acidic because the underlying geology is shale and quartzite. I prefer to fertilise roses with organic compost, tea leaves and coffee grounds but maybe I should just use a rose fertiliser

I meant to mention this in my post above, but got sidetracked by company. I was going to ask if you were sure it isn't a case of low fertility o/a, or perhaps a case where using a high-P fertilizer has caused an antagonistic deficiency of Fe, Mn, or both?

Quartzite has a low CEC and CEC of shale depends a lot on how silty it is, the more silt the lower the CEC, so it really does sound like there is a case for a general lack of fertility due to leaching, a potential theory that's easy to validate.

Be careful about adding too much old coffee grounds or tea leaves. Something I wrote about the alkaloids they contain unless they are well-composted. It's primarily written to keep container gardeners from incorporating it into their media, but you CAN use too much in gardens and beds, too:

Coffee/Tea Grounds

Forum discussions frequently center on the question of adding dilute coffee/tea or grounds to plants as a 'tonic', but Arabica (coffee) and Camellia (tea) are known for their toxic alkaloid (caffeine) content and their allelopathic affect on plants as well as autotoxic (poison to their own seedlings) effects on future generations. Caffeine interferes with root development by impairing protein metabolism. This affects activity of an important bio-compound (PPO) and lignification (the process of becoming woody), crucial steps for root formation.

We also know that the tannins in both coffee and tea are known allelopaths (growth inhibitors). There are ongoing experiments to develop herbicides using extracts from both coffee and tea that cause me to want to say they might serve better as a nonselective herbicide than as a tonic. I would not use either (stale coffee or tea) by applying directly to my plants - especially containerized plants; nor would I add tea bag contents/coffee grounds to my container media.

Al

Thank you! I think I'll add the tea and coffee to the compost bin instead and try conventional fertiliser. I haven't used any up to now so if there's a mineral imbalance, it's not related to fertiliser. I will look for something in the 9:3:6 ratio you recommend

9-3-6 is appropriate for a hug % of containerized plants because the medium is pretty much devoid of nutrients, or at least it should be if the focus is on the medium's structure and long-term serviceability. Pine or fir bark is rich in lignin and suberin. Lignin makes woof hard/strong and suberin is one of nature's best waterproofer if not THE best, so pine/fir bark as the foundation for container media limits soil biota's ability to cleave the hydrocarbon chains in which nutrients are locked; whereas, 9-3-6 is more apt to be inappropriate for use on plants in mineral soil gardens/beds because the "perfect" fertilizer for mineral soil applications will always take into account those nutrients currently/ naturally/ already in the soil when formulating the perfect plan. It's not just Foliage-Pro that would more likely be inappropriate than appropriate, the same is true of all the 'off-the-shelf' fertilizer products because w/o a soil test, adopting any supplementation program is pretty much a wing and a prayer - a wink is as good as a nod to a blind horse.

Not that it matters much to this conversation, but a fertilizer's RATIO is different than its NPK %s. The RATIO is the more important aspect to consider when choosing a fertilizer for container culture. 24-8-16, 12-4-8, and 9-3-6 are all 3:1:2 ratios. 20-20-20 and 14-14-14 are 1:1:1 ratios. Within a very narrow tolerance, all 3:1:2 and 1:1:1 ratios will deliver the same dosages after mixing. The difference is, you would need to mix twice as much 12-4-8 as 24-8-16 to make an equal strength solution.

Adding OM to the shale/quartzite native soil will contribute significantly to the soils ability to hold nutrients because on a per bulk density basis the OM is much more capable at nutrient retention. The soil test/ analysis will very likely be what puts your supplementation program back onto an even keel.

Al

So,your go- to needs adjustment? Well,that's true of any fertilizer for all plants.

I haven't changed a thing.

You've written reams and must have forgot you said magnesium salts are worthless for palms. The palm board people recommend it all the time.

Your favorite fert is probably a good one..but I have met long timers who only use liquid Kelp or seaweeds,others bat guano. There is more science than one product can have in it seems to me.

Roundup is a concentrated plant auxin. First used to promote root growth. Probably the same with tea or coffee- in super concentrated amounts its toxic..in leftover grounds amounts,not dangerous.

Al

When you fall back to others opinions as "trawling"..then no point going on. Good luck with your perfect formula.

Thank you Al, This has been very educational

Bloom from #2. This plant has the soft, furry leaves.

Bloom from #1, Pink Panther. Looks nothing like the seed sellers photo above. Please click on the images to see the whole picture.

Good growing Stewart.

They are pretty in their own right but it's disappointing that the seller sold you them dishonestly - and this thread confirms what I thought: that adenium cultivars are not stable, your seeds can turn into anything, like growing tomato seeds from a tomato you bought at the supermarket will not turn out like the tomato you had

YES! EXACTLY! Tomatoes is what I was thinking when I bought the seeds, ignorant Adenium seed newbie I was at the time. You buy beefsteak or cherry tomato seeds and when the fruit develops that’s what you get.

I only found out how wrong that thinking was after I made the purchase. Still, I was kind of hoping I’d luck out. LOL! I know better now.

The flowers on a plant can change from one year to the next & I think I have another Pink Panther so I’ll see what happens with that one, if I decide to hang on to them & wait to see.

Yes, I would wait and see what happens over another season. They are well-grown plants

#6. The seeds were labeled as Black Diamond but it looks remarkably like Pink Panther. If you click on the image you can see the entire picture.

Tyler,

I've got just the plant for you, graciously photographed and shared by Mahad Jebiye.

WOW! Thanks for the image, Jeff. Gorgeous. That is some Adenium alright.

Let’s see…Flowers…mostly bare limbs…few leaves….Multiflorum?

I’ve lost a few plants in my day. Never a good feeling, but I think if I lost my A. Multiflorum I’d be more than a little upset.

That's A. somalense. Puntland, Somalia.

Nice flowers Tyler! Even if it wasn't what you expected, still good looking

cactusmcharris' picture reminded me of this and I was looking for it since last night. Not Adenium but Adenia spinosa. Also highly toxic, I just love this caudex

Lots of character in both caudexs (caudices?) in their natural environments.

'Caudices' is correct, Ms. Stewart. You've just won on Succulent Jeopardy.'

Nik, yeah, I've seen pics like those - aren't they just the most monstery things!

Reminds me of Jabba the Hut haha

YES! EXACTLY what I was thinking!

#4 A. Obesum Pink Panther

#7 A. Obesum Black Diamond

I think thats going to be it for this season. Out of the 7 plants 5 did bloom. #1, 2, 6, 4 & 7 bloomed. Maybe next year numbers 3 & 5 will bloom.

Los Angeles to be in the 80's this week. Some times the bay area winters are just too cool.

November is when I usually have to bring them inside, historically. Overnight lows drop below 50F. I’m normally good through Thanksgiving.

I keep peeking for buds on 3 & 5, but I don’t think its going to happen. Shorter days & cooler nights. 5 out of 7 isn’t bad though.

Ok, so FINALLY. Adenium Obesum Triple Aphrodite (plant #5) decided to bloom. The bloom is NOTHING like the picture in the listing. I think it may be a double. Definitely NOT a triple. Of course, the color is totally off.

Hmmmm…. I knew this bloom looked familiar! As it turns out, #5 had bloomed before, just not for a very, very long time. Four years ago, as it turns out. No wonder I had forgotten!

https://www.houzz.com/discussions/4856175/the-one-that-started-it-all

Well, 4 years didn’t change anything. The bloom still looks pretty much the same, and still nothing like the seller’s post.

Wow, that's really gorgeous.

I have seen those at the Hunt Lib sales, iirc. I like the shape, they are sort of Seuss-y.

LOL! I guess it does look rather Suess-y, doesn”t it!

rather than jabba ,,, i call this one 'he man'