Both groups of beds were identical in what was planted. The other 13 beds were my “control group”. Two years ago I tested FF on 13 of my beds. I grow peas, beans, beets, okra, tomatoes, potatoes, various lettuces, spinach & pak choi. For 4 years my crops have been mediocre at best, even with compost (I always have 3 piles in various stages of cooking) Nowhere within 50 miles can I get good topsoil – it’s all junk.
VA where the soil is compacted clay – hence, raised beds. But it all boils down to whether or not fish fertilizer works. I really can’t think of any good reason to buy fish fertilizer if other sources of fertilizer are available. A 30 lb bag of manure will cost you $4 compared to $75 for the same amount of fish protein. Fish fertilizer is about 14% protein which is the same as manure. They also help build better soil by feeding microbes. That is true, and organic fertilizers do more than just provide nutrients. I can hear your objection – BUT … fish fertilizer is organic. What is the cost of 100 g of nitrogen if you buy a commercial fertilizer? Scotts sells a 30-0-9 at $17 for 6.2 Kg, or $0.91 for 100 g.įish fertilizer is 35 times more expensive than commercial fertilizer and plants can’t tell the difference between the two sources of nitrogen. Wow! Even fresh caught Atlantic salmon doesn’t cost that much!! This fertilizer has 2% nitrogen, and so the cost for the nitrogen is $33 for 100 g of nitrogen. Small quantities are even more expensive. I checked several fish fertilizers and a common analysis is 2-4-2 and if you buy in large containers you can get 9 lb (3.8 Kg) for $25. Who knew–organic fertilizer only needs to be 99% organic! Apparently, as long as these ingredients form less than 1% of the finished product, the product can still be called organic. In the process of turning fish scraps into fertilizer companies add a number of chemicals, including phosphoric acid, and odor inhibitors. This probably seems like a dumb question–fish are organic so why would fish extracts not be organic? Here’s why. Given this fact, fish fertilizer is no better or worse than other types of fertilizer.įish fertilizer has about 2% nitrogen, which is the same as most organic fertilizers compost, manure, and coffee grounds. Nitrogen is the thing that is missing in soils. Garden soils usually have enough P and K and the other minor nutrients. The main thing plants need from fertilizer is a source of nitrogen. I have found no support for the claim that fish fertilizer is better than any other organic fertilizer. Since the large molecules need to be degraded before plants can use them, there is little difference – to the plant – between proteins and oils from fish, cows (manure), or even plants. I have seen no scientific evidence to support the superiority of either process. I think the arguments for or against either process is just marketing hype. it is true that heat will denature proteins, but they need to be denatured for the plants to use them. So the argument that heat in the emulsion process is detrimental, makes no sense. Normally microbes in the soil degrade these to nutrients plants can use. There is great debate between the benefits of emulsion vs hydrolysate–which is better? The reality is that plants can’t use most of the large or even small organic molecules from either process. Fish hydrolysate is the result of using cold processing. Fish emulsion is the end product if the heating process is used. Further treatment can take one of two paths it is either heated or cold processed. These are then treated with various chemicals and enzymes to break down larger organic molecules into nutrients and other small organic molecules. What is the difference between fish emulsion and fish hydrolysate? The difference from a plants point of view is minor, but if you are trying to sell product–there are big differences.įish emulsion and fish hydrolysate start with the left over bits from the fish industry–the parts no one else wants.
0 kommentar(er)
