fish emulsion ???'s

[dice]

"How often are you using the fish emulsion on your plants?"

Instructions on the bottle say every 3 weeks if that
is your primary nutrition source for the plants.

"Do you put it on all of them? How about flowers?"

Usually only at transplant time, along with some
foliar-feeding strength high-phosphorus blossom
booster (to stimulate rooting in the transplants).
I prefer to amend the soil in fall and spring so that
it has enough nutrition to last all summer. The
initial shot of fish+ is simply to get them going
(the roots are all in nutrient-poor seed starting
mix when they go into the ground).

Knowledgeable growers say that they should get a
fertilizer boost when fruit set begins, but how much
benefit you get from that probably depends on how
rich one's soil is to begin with.

[amideutch]

Here's what I use. I have the Drammitic "K". Ami
http://www.dramm.com/html/main.isx?sub=5

[organichris]

On a certain clandestine gardening message board I used to frequent, some of the "growers" took issue with fish-based fertilizers. And if I'm not mistaken, Alaska Fish Fertilizer was the one specifically mentioned. I'm only going by memory, but I believe that the way in which the fish are processed calls into question whether the product is organic. Also, some fish fertilizers are made from fish whose populations are growing scarce.

I have never used fish emulsion, but if I were to do so I would want to be assured that the product is made from fish scraps and waste. In other words I would want to know that the ocean wasn't being depleted of fish for the sole purpose of manufacturing fertilizer. And I would want to know that phosphic acid wasn't used in the manufacture of the product.

[organichris]

**phosphoric acid, that is**

[dice]

Alaska Fish Fertilizer (5-1-1 N-P-K)
is supposed to be "waste derived."
It lists available P2O5 on the label,
but it does not list phosphoric acid
or any other chemical as an ingredient.

That said, 5-1-1 is not optimum for tomatoes.
Products like Tomato Tone, for example, have
more phosphorus and potassium than nitrogen.

I've read, fairly recently, that phosphoric acid
is manufactured by applying sulfuric acid to
hard rock phosphate. That seems pretty close
to a natural ingredient of soils to me. It is
not as if it were some waste product spewed
out of a chemical factory with who knows what
exotic chemical toxins lurking in the "inert
ingredients". Everything there comes from
a mined mineral.

There are natural sources of available
phosphorus, and you can find them in certified
organic fertilizers with high phosphorus content.

[organichris]

I guess the issue of natural vs. organic could be argued forever. And there's no real consensus on much of this stuff. But technically mined minerals are not organic. But yeah, I see your point about the product being from natural sources. On the other hand, everything (miracle gro included) can be traced back to a natural source. My preference is to stick with nutrients derived from organic sources with little or no human processing.

I agree that 5-1-1 is not ideal, and that if such an NPK ratio is being used, one would ideally compensate for the lack of P and K by using other amendments or fertilizers in addition to the fish emulsion.

[dice]

I've seen fish emulsion products that have
had chemicals added to make a more balanced
N-P-K ratio, but it was generally noted on the label.

The thing with using raw, mined rock phosphate
is that it takes awhile for soil organisms to make
the phosphorus in it available to plants. If you
are thinking ahead, amending this year for the soil
you want next year and the year after, it is as
natural a source of long-lasting phosphorus as
any.

If your soil needs more phosphorus *right now*,
however, and enough to last the summer, rock
phosphate is not so handy. Triple phosphate is
cheaper than guano, etc, so that gets used a lot.

[organichris]

I have also found that cooked bone meal has plenty of available phosphorus, and can be used as a side dressing. But the raw bone meal takes a while to break down, so its important to discern the difference if your plants needs phosphorus immediately.

[dice]

Bone meal works. I've heard that it takes 90 days in
the soil before the nutrients in it become available
(so one needs to amend with it in winter or early
spring, long before the tomato plants are transplanted).

One company has a fish product made from fish bones.

[organichris]

The amount of time it takes for bone meal to made available to plants depends mostly on whether it is steamed or not. The steaming process breaks down the bone so the phosphorus is more readily available. Another factor to consider is the microbial activity of the soil. A soil rich in microbes and other micro-organisms breaks down organic matter at a higher rate.

I can't break it down specifically in days, but my experience is that the steamed bone meal seems to be available fairly soon, and the fact that not all of it is immediately available for plant use just means that it is time-released so it remains in the soil to be broken down when needed over time.

I'm a stickler for organics. That's just me. But to understand the organic philosophy is to know that the general N-P-K rules of thumb are much less applicable. In other words, the percentages of macronutrients is somewhat less applicable. Soil science and the organic method are more about overall soil health, which translates into overall microbial activity and plant health. Some (myself included) would even argue a superior product.

I've heard of the fish bone meal, but I've never actually seen it anywhere or used it. I would sure like to get my hands on some. That would probably be ideal for availability of phosphorus, although that's just a guess. And I say that because fish bones, unlike bovine bones, are much softer and would theoretically break down much faster.