Foliar Fertilizers
- Thread starter sandbur
- Start date
omicron1792
5 year old buck +
I’m skeptical on foliars. Maybe If everything is perfect and you want to get that last bit of yield on a commercial farm. Imo most nutrients are taken up by the roots.
I do think applying liquid directly to the root zone has benefit.
I do think applying liquid directly to the root zone has benefit.
Telemark
5 year old buck +
I'm also skeptical toward foliar fertilizers. I don't mean to say that it doesn't work. It does work. But it's not the way plants generally take in nutrients, so it's not what I focus on. I think foliar feeding is good for treating nutrient deficiencies and for potted plants with limited root systems. For my plants that are growing outdoors I focus my efforts on soil health, especially biology.
If you till heavily or have soil issues, foliar feeding might be worth it. But if you have healthy soil, your efforts are probably better allocated to some other task than foliar feeding.
If you till heavily or have soil issues, foliar feeding might be worth it. But if you have healthy soil, your efforts are probably better allocated to some other task than foliar feeding.
Telemark
5 year old buck +
That's what I did before. I didn't notice a big difference between those I sprayed and those I didn't spray in my garden. I made a concentrate by dry fermenting nettles and comfrey.
The potted plants at the garden center I worked at got an apparent boost from the foliar feeding.
What are you using on your trees?
I have a bunch of comfrey growing, and plant borage every year. I also throw in whatever weeds are growing well at the time, like pigweed, lambsquarter, ragweed, dandelions.
I cram as many leaves as I can get in a 5 gallon bucket, fill it with water, and put a lid on it. It's ready in 4 to 6 weeks. I have to dilute it with 5 parts water for every 1 part of tea, or it's too strong to use as a foliar. I'll use it straight if pouring on the tree's dripline.
I cram as many leaves as I can get in a 5 gallon bucket, fill it with water, and put a lid on it. It's ready in 4 to 6 weeks. I have to dilute it with 5 parts water for every 1 part of tea, or it's too strong to use as a foliar. I'll use it straight if pouring on the tree's dripline.
Turkey Creek
5 year old buck +
Typically, foliar fertilizer is used to correct micronutrient deficiencies. Wouldn't be the way to go on the macro nutrients.
Catscratch
5 year old buck +
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.
yoderjac
5 year old buck +
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.
FarmerDan
5 year old buck +
Serious use of foliar fertilizers occurs on high value commercial crops where there's some evidence of a nutrient deficiency exhibited by plant tissue - leaves. The evidence is usually confirmed by sampling plant tissue - again leaves. The tissue is sent to a lab. Labs that do soil samples may provide the service, but not all soils labs do tissue testing. The test results will look much like those of a soil test but with a strong emphasis on about 16 nutrients . There are 8 or 9 macronutrients and about the same number of micronutrients. Many are amendable. Some are not.
Then it comes down to a cost-benefit decision. The costs of applying foliar sprays containing micronutrients (effectively) largely outweighs the benefits except for some fruits and vegetables headed for fresh-market sale.
Think about this. When testing soil and amending it to provide adequate plant nutrition we rely a lot on faith. We assume the plant will extract the required nutrition from the soil but the only way to know for sure is tissue sampling. I'm not recommending it here, but if you want to apply foliar sprays on the hope of some improvement spray away. I can't think of any downside except to your wallet and available time.
Then it comes down to a cost-benefit decision. The costs of applying foliar sprays containing micronutrients (effectively) largely outweighs the benefits except for some fruits and vegetables headed for fresh-market sale.
Think about this. When testing soil and amending it to provide adequate plant nutrition we rely a lot on faith. We assume the plant will extract the required nutrition from the soil but the only way to know for sure is tissue sampling. I'm not recommending it here, but if you want to apply foliar sprays on the hope of some improvement spray away. I can't think of any downside except to your wallet and available time.
Anyone wanting to do some in depth research into foliar applications should check out Advancing Eco Agriculture. There's lots of info on their website but tons more on their YouTube channel.
www.advancingecoag.com
Regenerative Agriculture | Liquid Plant Fertilizer
AEA's organic liquid fertilizers and crop systems help fruit and vegetable growers make more money with regenerative agriculture across the country.
www.advancingecoag.com
Catscratch
5 year old buck +
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.
yoderjac
5 year old buck +
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.
Catscratch
5 year old buck +
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?
yoderjac
5 year old buck +
Ok, got it. My experience with applying miracle grow is with a hose end sprayer. That is what I missed. THanks!
FarmerDan
5 year old buck +
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.
Catscratch
5 year old buck +
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?
