Clem, here is an issue that is of serious concern to me, and I can imagine that what I am about to address is something that is a problem for most of us all. At some point in the last several years among (Florida) foliage growers, the use of granular fertilizer that is incorporated throughout the media has become standard and popular. This is a huge problem for interiorscapers because the granular stuff cannot be scraped off the top and addressed. What results are aglaonemas that have rotten roots (try non-existent) and blackened JC’s that in spite of the eye telling the brain, "But I swear that looks like a nasty disease," it comes back from the lab or a quick salt meter check gives you a result of 3.0 mmhos (you might as well be watering your plants with salt water.) I’ve seen enough of it that I would love to know if its a problem for anyone else. I don’t know if this grower trend is a result of marketing by fertilizer companies, or if soil is purchased with granular already incorporated to save costs, or if it is a (cheaper) substitute for an injection system. Perhaps this is a spark that can have greater ramifications if more interiorscapers have found the same problem because in regard to this issue specifically, there should be an examination into the practice of using incorporated granular fertilizer ubiquitously. Please email me or post your thoughts. Regards, Lynnae.

This is an issue that has vexed ’scapers from time immemorial...while it should be obvious that the needs of the end-user must be among the top priorities of the grower (if not, what’s the point of growing anything?), there are others of similar high importance that growers must respect. Chief among these is profit margin. If the production of a particular crop, with all of its associated costs such as media, container, water, fertilizer, chemical controls, manual labor, machinery, taxes, sleeving and packing materials, etc. etc. etc., cannot produce a satisfactory, fair profit to the grower, then that crop will not be grown.

To wit, timed-relase or controlled-release fertilizers. Unfortunately for growers and for us, all of the fertilizer industry’s fancy charts, graphs and research findings cannot guarantee how a particular product will perform under the variable environmental conditions of a Florida outdoor nursery facility. That means that a product that nominally should be "used up" within 3, 6 or 9 months after application or incorporation into the growing medium may or may not still be present in significant enough concentration to do damage to a plant that subsequently finds itself in a dimly-lit interiorscape. Horticulture, by its textbook definition, is not just a science, but an art and a real-world practice as well.

In recent years, growing media containing "starter nutrient charges" and incorporated timed-release fertilizer prills have become more common in the green industry as growers aim for more economical ways of producing their crops. These mixes eliminate one of the manual labor practices that incurs additional costs, namely that of custom-mixing or hand-application of the product to the mix. If a grower decides to take advantage of this time- and money-saving step in the process and uses such media on different crops, the end-user inherits the leavings of the grower’s decision, with all of its pluses and minuses.

As you know, interiorscapers comprise a very small percentage of the total sales of Florida nurseries. Retail sales are the key to profitability, and these days that means sales via the chain-store supply chain, not primarily the independent or small-chain garden center, florist or plant store of the 1970’s and 1980’s. And that supply chain demands one thing above all else: bottom line low prices. That means that growers must adhere to the business model of the canned soup manufacturer: produce a product in huge quantities that only returns pennies per "can". And you can fill in the blanks from there on.

What can be done to make this situation better? I don’t know if there is anything that the growers can be persuaded to do, since more and more of them are inevitably married to this principle each year in order to survive. We as interiorscapers must face the fact that the protocols for getting "raw" Florida foliage in shape to survive and thrive on the job must be devised and implemented by us. We will have to decide to create and fund the facilities and methods for acclimatizing plants prior to putting them out into the world...things like shadehouses, artificially-lit indoor holding facilities, repotting facilities for retrofitting foliage into suitable media and subirrigation units prior to installation, pre-installation pest control quarantine areas for scouting and treating pest infestations before plants go to the jobsite, etc.

All of this will cost us more in the bottom line costs of using Florida foliage. That implies one thing for certain: if we’re going to do this right, we’ll be spending more time and money doing it, and that implies that we’ll need to charge more for our time, labor, materials and expertise. Whether the market will bear that elevated pricing remains to be seen.

An alternative is for some enterprising entrepreneur to invest in a different way of growing foliage. Perhaps a venture capitalist might fund a pilot project up north somewhere, where a greenhouse facility would be built on vacant land next to a power plant, making use of undesirable real estate and "waste" hot water from the plant to grow plants at a cost comparable to that of a Florida nursery doing the same thing outdoors in a subtropical climate. Just a thought, but it might work. Sure, the winters up north still give us shorter, dimmer days in which to grow than they do down south, but the cost savings in terms of heat and land costs might very well offset that factor...it’s worth some study by the bean-counters among us, at the very least.

Clem

Clem, you’ve once again brilliantly outlined the logistics behind this perennial problem. Outside of finding that ideallic niche grower or holding greenhouse, I can say that there is one little trick that "works" (but is often no more practical.) Have you heard of using sugar to reduce soluable salts (the idea being that the sugar will stimulate microorganisms and thus those bacteria will in turn use up the fertilizer and nutrients as well?) I’ve had some few opportunities to measure its results and it does work. However, using it on a large scale for a large building with hundreds of JC’s and AGs is a little tricky. More than one application is required along with follow up salt measurements to see how much the salts were reduced (there’s really no magic formula or rate.) It is certainly worth the trouble to apply for large material and atrium settings, but adding it regularly to the water in the tank while going about a large account? I suppose its no less messy than mixing in Clearys or some other chemical, but sugar is sticky and can potentially attract bugs if not dissolved. Or, if plant production continues on the same path (more, faster, cheaper, in large quantities,) just anticipate replacing a JC in the 10 footcandle or less range to last no longer than 4 to 8 months. An aglaonema in "low light," maybe will last 8 mos. to a year.


Incidentally, does anyone foresee the possibility of tropical foliage production moving to Central America? I dare to utter a flippant observation, but it seems like all the invasive species find their way to the states anyway.... (I believe that for those that may not be aware, the USDA considers soil to be the cut-off point, so cuttings are fair game to be shipped to US, but finished plants are not.) Personally, I don’t care for the idea of foliage production shifting outside of USA, but it seems to me that it could happen.

I’m under the impression that some of these timed-released ferts release their nutes according to temp. I would assume the hot florida weather would accelerate this but would a saving grace be that when placed indoors the rootzone temp will dramatically decrease thereby staving off the fert release.

Re: sugar, I thought sugar and sugar based iso-tonic flushing agents like Clearex (botanicare-american agritech) acted as chelators thereby allowing some of the "timed" release fert to become avail. If this newly avail fert is not flushed from the soil then it would seem to increase the avail EC. It’s definately a pain to remove a plant from an interiorscape just to flush it with sugar but even trying to do it before installation it seems the flushing could create an undue hyper-tonic osmotic environment in the root zone and stress the plant to much.

Hello anon.
It may be a relief to you to know that the recommendation for the use of sugar is in conjunction with the interior irrigation needs while the plant is on the account. Thus the need for multiple applications.

Yes, the "nutes," or nutrients are affected to a degree by temperature, however, the point at which the fertilizer becomes too much for the plant is when the light level drops (ie installation into interior environment.)Therefore, the lessened rate of dissolution is negated by the trumping factor that too much fertilizer is too much fertilizer. It has often wisely been prescribed among the leaders of this industry that time release fertilizer be "scraped off" before installation. Now that time release fetilizer is incorporated into the soil that is no longer possible, thus the reason I initiated the thread.

Please, can you elaborate on the use of the word "isotonic." I love it when I am challenged to look up a word, but considering that it refers to "noting or pertaining to solutions characterized by equal osmotic pressure," I am uncertain about the application in regard to soluable salt levels in soils. Specifically, in cells the maintenance of isotonic conditions allow for no movement of water into or out of cell membranes such that the turgor pressure is maintained. The imbalance of salt levels is what allows for the movement of water into plant roots (the basis of osmosis), so isotonic conditions are not conducive to that.

Can you tell me a little bit more about "Clearex?" There are Sooooo many products out there, especially the organic products, but I would love to know more about it. Never heard of it before today- could be a great thing to bring to everyone’s attention.

As far as the properties of chelates....... in a nutshell they are complex organic chains that are more likely to bind inorganic substances and fertilizers before they allow more dissolution. Please, correct me if I am wrong about that, yet we are all familiar with Ironite. The reason it won’t burn is because it is a chelated source of iron, and the iron comes into solution slowly over time versus immediately as a simpler inorganic compound would. Thus, the reason "it won’t burn."

Also, there is always proof in the pudding. I was extremely skeptical about the sugar thing even though the data originated from research at UF/IFAS. I can tell you by applying it in the field on multiple occasions and taking subsequent salt meter readings it does have a subtle yet real effect of reducing salt levels. Oh, and I love this the most- I have taken before and after readings of new material that was watered heavily (i.e. "flushed) before installation and in some cases the short term effect was that the salt levels increased (and pH decreased) because more fertilizer was dissolving as the water entered the soil column. Too funny! But, that was certainly that much less to dissolve once it was on the account.... Thanks for the posting, anon- I’m always tickled pink to have discourse with anyone who uses words like chelate.

Yours in benevolence, Lynnae.

Hey, fellow conspiracy theorists!

Have you considered that selling plants that "self-destruct" afer a few months is a form of planned-obsolence marketing technique for both growers and retailers? Especially considering the big-box retailers. Some consumers will keep coming back again and again, and even blaming the problem on themselves ("black thumb" syndrome).

Thus, this system not only saves money on the growing end, but increases sales all down the line.

Questions is: What do we do about it in our interiorscapes? Keep the plant in your greenhouse for six months while leaching? This is pretty expensive.

Me’be the answer is the "expensive" interior-oriented grower/marketer cited above.

Maybe there is no good answer.

Carl

Some growers are very sensitive to the needs of interiorscapers and provide shade grown material. I haven’t had the benefit of surveying a lot of growers, but I think the phenomenon is something that occurred unintentionally on the part of the growers. I’d blame short-sighted fertilizer marketing before I’d believe that all growers are intentionally trying to peddle a self-destructing product. I wonder how many growers even realize the extent of the problem. But, yes, the chain retail market certainly lowers the bar for the industry. How many times have you been in Walmart and wanted to grab a passing customer by the shoulders and declare, "Good God, woman, can’t you see that plant is dripping with spider mites?"

You know, I talked about the type of damage high salts inflict on jc’s and ags, but has anyone ever seen a fishtail just turn ugly within the first few weeks of installation? Ugly as in "I didn’t know tropical foliage changed colors in the..... wait, its not fall, is it?" Chances are that this phenomenon may be the result of pH that has been lowered into the 4.something range- the other effect of certain granular fertilizers. What is literally causing the yellow and red blotching is dehydration, excess of micronutrients, leaf fusarium, or all of the above in conjunction. Plants are dramatically more susceptible to fusarium when the pH is significantly low, so the poor fishtail gets tortured on two fronts.

Honestly, growers wouldn’t know that this is happening unless they are told. There is a reason the plant looks great at the time its shipped to you- because these plants are irrigated several times a week and are constantly flushed. That same fertillizer that causes the low pH and micronutrient burn allows the grower to create a beautiful green palm. And, in the case of the low pH, you can give a good dose of lime before you install it.

Being a former interiorscaper turned golf course agronomist, you are off a bit on the suger flush. A better flushing agent would be an inexpensive calcium, like gypsum. It could be sprinkled on the soil surface then watered in with normal watering. It is very effective on salt and would also flush any abundance of nitrogen out.

"A better flushing agent would be an inexpensive calcium, like gypsum."

My SoCal Tap has plenty of Calcium and Sulfur lol, 282 ppm hardness (CalMag), 180 ppm Sulfate (<yearly analysis from water district.) My own Hanna probe tells me 800 ppm TDS@.72 Total.


"and would also flush any abundance of nitrogen out"

I’m not aware that N will bind with Ca or S in solution so how is the N being "tied up"? Even if it did interiorscape plants for the most part are self-contained and nothing is ever "flushed". It is either tied up or recirculated back into the medium when the excess water/soultion is reabsorbed from the saucer.

"Please, can you elaborate on the use of the word "isotonic."’

In terms of flushing, it would be a bad idea to cause a hyper-tonic osmotic environment for the roots because it would unduly stress the plant by dessication. If you liberate a lot of the nutes from the granules and don’t counter-balance it the EC will rise (hyper tonic) and the pH will lower, both of which can shock the plant if the flush is done to fast. But this is the problem because I don’t have time to slowly flush a timed release nute away.
Clearex I believe is a sugar-based chelator. The problem in interiorscapes is, the chelator has now liberated some of the elements from the granular fert and they are now more readily avail for the plant to be assimilated. I believe you’re correct when you say sugar is an organic chelete so the measurable EC should not rise (like I erroneously mentioned) but the avail amount of nutes to the plant will be greater since these nutes are not being flushed.

Clearex is designed to be added and then flushed with twice the volume of plain water to remove the newly liberated nutes.
I’m leary of using organic sugar products inside because like you mentioned bacteria and some fungi will multiply and IMO an organic medium indoors has the potential too attract to many "undesirables" like gnats, ants, etc.

BTW an inadvertent benefit of using my "hard" SoCal water is that it helps to offset the low pH caused by the releasing nutes from the granules in the same way as you mentioned about using lime.
"Pure" water with granular fert would indeed seem to cause a much too low pH over time, especially coupled with the fact that peat based mediums self-lower their pH over time anyway.

A salt is not a salt is not a salt....

To "anon also", I agree that a calcium or lime product is a good thing to use preventatively to help combat primarily pH problems. However, I recommend using it prior to installation because lime or gypsum are messy products for interiorscapers once on the job (even flowable lime is risky near carpets, furniture, etc.) However, in regard to the "salts" that calcium binds, correct me if I am wrong but I think the target anions are Fl- and Cl-. I will look it up when I next get around a copy of Merck’s, but I think "anon" is correct about it not binding nitrate (it really isn’t nitrogen literally.) The other benefit to lime or gypsum is that it displaces BAD cations (i.e. "SALT" to the rest of the world- Na.) And depending on the fertilizer lime and gypsum would neutralize the H+ content that is the "acidifying" element that commonly is a byproduct of the formation of nitrate. Nitrate itself is very soluable and very leachable. And in a golf course setting, anon also, I would consider sugar a ludicrous option for correcting "salt" problems, so you are correct given the perspective of your current employment.

Anon- Ok, I understand now your use of the word hyper-tonic. Its another way to refer to a level of increased salinity such that water is no longer flowing into plant roots due to the basic principles of osmosis. However, comparing the chemical properties of sugar and Clearex is errroneous as you now recognize. Based on your description of the dissolution properties of Clearex, I am curious to research exactly what kind of chelate it is because it almost sounds like an acid given what it does. And yes, if Clearex rapidly dissolves granular fertilizer, it may or may not be a good product for interiorscape. It is a good product only IF the plant is going to be removed from the setting to be flushed. I tried this once with some good-sized palms with just plain water. We got NO reduction in the salt levels because the darn fertilizer was just releasing more nutrients all the while (which is the very phenomenon you’ve mentioned.) Next time I get to try a project like that, I’ll check out the Clearex.

I wouldn’t worry about increasing bacteria by use of sugar drenches. They aren’t the kind of bacteria that are bad to humans, and really the sugar within the soil column should be consumed completely by those organisms (did you know that the total amount of microorganisms in the soil around the world are three times the mass of all above ground flora and fauna....) The variant of risk lies in spillage, drip, etc.- the "human factor." And certain ant species ARE very much attracted to sugar water. But, I’ll bet they came to the account in the first place because of the coffee station, and wound up on the plant by default.

Ok, humor me, what is "IMO?"

Yours in benevolence, Lynnae.

Lynnae: "IMO" = "in my opinion" and thus, "IMHO" = "in my HUMBLE opinion"...;)

Carl: so tropical plants are today’s version of the Yugo? Hmmm...if you’ve ever been to a Home Depot, you know that someone has badly bollixed the planned obsolescence timing...a few months to self-destruction? A week is more like it!!! How H. D. makes any profit off houseplants is akin to alchemy...someone at the Home Office must have a Dorian-Gray-type picture in his closet.

Clem

"I wouldn’t worry about increasing bacteria by use of sugar drenches. They aren’t the kind of bacteria that are bad to humans..."

But are they the kind that are pathogenic to plants? This can potentially be a difficult variable to control, unless precautions are taken like pre-innoculation with bacillus subtilis.
As you mentioned there are a lot of bacteria and fungal spores everywhere and if a plant is in an environment where, for example, it is constantly cool and damp then the dissolved oxygen (DO) in the root zone can be low enough that if a food sorce (sugar) is added the pathogenic anerobic micro-organisms can gain the upper hand over the beneficial ones.
The type of sugar has some play in all this also. I’ve always heard unsulphured blackstrap molasses to be the be source.

Re: Home Depot
Planned obsolescence + guarantee for one year = Clem’s right once again
but how is this much different than scapers who guarantee their plants?

Anaerobic bacteria are a product of anaerobic conditions. There should be no occasion for anaerobic conditions to develop by normal watering with sugar happen to be added. There are bacteria and spores everywhere- very very few of them are pathenogenic. A small percentage of bacteria and fungi are "the bad guys." The fact is that the greater part of those microorganisms are very helpful in processing nutrients, creating chelates, and structuring soil. Forests literally would not survive without bacteria and fungi to support them and "fix" nutrients for them. So, the bacteria that are burning up the sugar, nitrogen, phosphorus, iron, calcium, etc. (just to name a few,) are desirable. The sugar just kind of kicks up their production a notch. Have you ever had to explain to someone once you had no choice but to admit that, yes, those are "bugs" you see on the plant that those bugs are NOT capable of biting, bothering, or jumping onto human beings? To some folks bugs are bugs as if there was no difference between a bed bug and scale. Spider mites really give them the willies- ever had to explain that, "No, its not really a spider?"

There is a key difference in terminology that is often confusing.As I previously mentioned, most microorganisms are saprophytic (as opposed to parasitic.)Saprobes help break down DEAD tissue. Parasites attack living tissue. Simply, roots have to be dead or dying before the bacteria or fungi will begin to start the decay process. And what, is the usual cause of that decay? High salts. The two most common tropical foliage bacterial diseases are species xanthamonas and pseudomonas which typically are spread by wet conditons and enter the leaf tissue through pores, injury, or the hydathode. Under ideal conditions, if root tissue is healthy, there is no need to even give a second thought as to what kind of bacteria are in the soil.

IMHO you guys should all eat way too much and hug all your loved ones. See you next week!

sodium (salt) tends to go into solution with the addition of water. More of it is in solution than is bound to the soil colloid at the exchange site and any large atomic weight nutrient (calcium) will literally push the sodium through the profile. However, as you mentioned, most of the water is a contained system and is just reabsorbed with the sodium. Nitrogen most commonly is found in NH4 form which has a negative charge and tends to stay in solution and is easily flushed through. With the addition of O2 NH4 will become NO3 which has a positive charge and will bond with the soil and not flush. Again, the curse of a closed system. Unfortunatly you are taking a plant from nature and putting it in an environment that makes it much more difficult to do the things it naturally wants to do to survive. Good luck with that.

OK, OK, I’m supposed to be packing, but I couldn’t resist responding to "someone else" because there are some disturbingly erroneous statements in your posting.

Nitrate (NO3-) is an anion. It is negatively charged and is rapidly leached.

Ammonium (NH4+) is a cation. It is postively charged and hardly ever remains NH4+ (although as a compound , I imagine that is an example of a cation that stays in solution as you say, however*.)

There are two forms of nitrogen sources in fertilizers:
-ammoniacal
-nitrate
You can look at any fertilizer label to determine the % content of either of those two sources. NH3 may be more common in agriculture, but it is not desirable in large quantities generally speaking for tropical foliage.

A lot of ammoniacal nitrogen is very undesirable because of the high acid content formed by NH4+ rapidly converting to NO2- and immediately to NO3-. This process relies on.........BACTERIA (aerobic- so yes, of course, O2 as well.) *Generally once in the soil solution, it is not commonly regarded that NH4+ remains in that form anyway as it is believed to be converted to NO3-.

It is true that Ca2+ is a good cation to reduce Na+ levels because soil particles have a greater affinity for divalent cations. Irrigation water itself can be a source for sodium, although this is usually only a problem in certain well water. Sodium- affected irrigation water can commonly be a problem for growers and in agriculture, however.

Thanks Lynnae, you are completely right. In my rush to blurt some what I thought were facts, I had everything wrong! Have a great holiday!