I make my own and spray on my fruit trees and everything in my garden. Amazing results!
Are you sure this wasn't a ground application of fertilizer. Most of the Miracle Grow I've used is just a water soluble fertilizer. I sprayed it at the bae of azaleas and other bushes and it clearly improved flowering and growth. It was not applied to the foliage. I can't recall the N-P-K content, but that is what was up-taken by the roots, not the foliage. It would be hard to tell if the impact on your lawn was due at all to foliar uptake or simply the fact it was fertilized and healthier going into the drought than the rest of the yard.So last spring I came across a big box of Miracle Grow that was cheap so I grabbed it. Every few days I went out and foliar sprayed a section of my yard plot just to see what would happen. I did this maybe for a month before life got busy and it fell to the wayside. I did see a difference but not much. Fast forward to this fall and the advent of us being in the most severe category of drought there is and guess what I've noticed... the section I had sprayed handled the drought much better than the rest of the plot. Sure isn't concrete proof of anything, likely very NOT cost or time effective, and likely not comparable to ground applied fert., but there was a difference in resilience of those plant.
Pretty darn sure that I mixed it in a sprayer and used it to spray the foliage. Was not ground applied.Are you sure this wasn't a ground application of fertilizer. Most of the Miracle Grow I've used is just a water soluble fertilizer. I sprayed it at the bae of azaleas and other bushes and it clearly improved flowering and growth. It was not applied to the foliage. I can't recall the N-P-K content, but that is what was up-taken by the roots, not the foliage. It would be hard to tell if the impact on your lawn was due at all to foliar uptake or simply the fact it was fertilized and healthier going into the drought than the rest of the yard.
But what you spray on the foliage drips to the ground. I'm not saying foliar application was not useful, I'm just saying we can't tell how much it was the foliar and how much was just the fertilizer application regardless of how it was absorbed. Or, maybe I'm missing something.Pretty darn sure that I mixed it in a sprayer and used it to spray the foliage. Was not ground applied.
That is exactly the point. The better fertilized plants handled the drought better than unfertilized.
Sorry if I was unclear about what I did and the results.
Oh you're missing something for sure. I'll make it real clear. The fertilizer was applied to the foliage. It was misted on with a hand sprayer in the mornings at a time that we were not getting rain. It was dry in 30 minutes. There was no dripping or wash off. The plants were fertilized through the foliage. Foliage application, not soluble fert on the ground, not grandular cut into the ground, not anything else. Foliar applied fert. Way more simple than you are making it. FOLIAR APPLIED. That part of the plot was more resilient than neighboring unfertilized parts of the plot.But what you spray on the foliage drips to the ground. I'm not saying foliar application was not useful, I'm just saying we can't tell how much it was the foliar and how much was just the fertilizer application regardless of how it was absorbed. Or, maybe I'm missing something.
Ok, got it. My experience with applying miracle grow is with a hose end sprayer. That is what I missed. THanks!Oh you're missing something for sure. I'll make it real clear. The fertilizer was applied to the foliage. It was misted on with a hand sprayer in the mornings at a time that we were not getting rain. It was dry in 30 minutes. There was no dripping or wash off. The plants were fertilized through the foliage. Foliage application, not soluble fert on the ground, not grandular cut into the ground, not anything else. Foliar applied fert. Way more simple than you are making it. FOLIAR APPLIED. That part of the plot was more resilient than neighboring unfertilized parts of the plot.
"I'm just saying we can't tell how much it was the foliar and how much was just the fertilizer application regardless of how it was absorbed."
This statement is confusing to me. Fert benefits the plant regardless of how it's absorbed. Why differentiate one method over the other unless you have a preconceived outcome? In the end if it gets into the plant... aren't they all the same at that point?
Yes and no. I have no preconceived outcome for the math tells all. Amounts matter. Absorption of foliar applied nutrients is limited by leaf surface and the condition of the leaf. Small amounts of foliar applied micronutrients are possible, macronutrients not so much for anything but rescue or short-term green-up possibilities.This statement is confusing to me. Fert benefits the plant regardless of how it's absorbed. Why differentiate one method over the other unless you have a preconceived outcome? In the end if it gets into the plant... aren't they all the same at that point?
Yes and no. I have no preconceived outcome for the math tells all. Amounts matter. Absorption of foliar applied nutrients is limited by leaf surface and the condition of the leaf. Small amounts of foliar applied micronutrients are possible, macronutrients not so much for anything but rescue or short-term green-up possibilities.
Here's a random label:
I'm not meaning to dismiss liquid fertilizers, soil or foliar applied. But, to get 40 lbs of N on an acre using this formulation would require 800 gallons (if I did my math right and assuming the liquid weight per gallon is 10 lb). For the micro's it might be doable and cost effective.
View attachment 47251
My statement that you quoted was a direct response to this statement - "I'm just saying we can't tell how much it was the foliar and how much was just the fertilizer application regardless of how it was absorbed.". It confused me as we CAN tell how much it was foliar application because the plot wasn't fertilized in any other way. But, I still stand by my statement that once it's absorbed it matters little how it was absorbed. Inconveniences to us aside (such as how many gallons it would take, how efficient it absorbs, cost, number of applications, time spent, etc) once the fertilizer is in the plant it is in the plant.
Personally, unless I had a specific deficiency that could easily be solved with a foliar I wouldn't advise most to mess with it.
With that said these plots have never been tilled and have never had an application of granular fertilizer applied to them. They are my testbed for soil health. My foliar experiment was to see if I could add fert to the plants without disrupting the microbes and invertebrates in the soil. I kept close track of how quickly organic matter was being decomposed and the frequency of worm casing being expelled in this plot compared to the neighboring plots that did not receive foliar fert. The working theory being that synthetic fertilizers often disrupt or destroy the balance of living soil. My question was if the fertilizer was processed through the plant first (instead of being directly worked into the ground) would it make a difference?