help with building vertical tomato stand

[aimeruni]

I have a small plot to garden on, and as a result a very limited amount of space (20' x 20'). I don't want the tomato stand planter to take up more space than growing tomatoes in the ground in a row would; that totally defeats the purpose of making it, as I want it to take up LESS space in the garden, not more.

I'm NOT looking for topsy turvey tomato planters (where it's growing in a hanging container and the plant is upside down).


http://www.pinterest.com/pin/199847302187998972/

This is an idea I have in mind; however it looks like it would take a fair amount of time to make, and would like for it to be smaller with the footprint.

http://urbangardencasual.com/2008/05...down-tomatoes/

This is very simple, but I don't want upside down tomato plants; the plants would need more headroom, since they'd be growing right-side up.


I would like for it to be sturdy, simple to construct, and not take a huge amount of time to make.

With the links shown above, I'd like for the stand to hold multiple pots/buckets.

If anybody has ideas with 'blueprints' or a guide of how to make it, please be specific with the instructions and material list.

Thank you in advance.

[nnjjohn]

google up "Florida weave" you can also type in youtube search and see how easy and efficient this vertical system works.

[aimeruni]

I have a question about the Florida weave method; I'm trying to maximize the amount of space I have by being able to grow more in less space without compensating the health of the plant in the process (i.e. not overcrowding, which I know makes the plants more stressed out, which makes them more prone to disease and infestations from insects)

Does this Florida weave method allow you to plant more in less space, or does is it just a means of supporting the tomato plants and keeping the fruit off the ground.

If the only purpose of FL weave is a means of supporting it, (the key word here is 'if' I don't know that's why I'm asking) but will not allow me plant more in less space, well it's really not what I'm looking for.

I found this excerpt from a site regarding how far apart to plant tomato plants:

Some say that the farther your plants are apart, the more tomatos you will have on each plant. Likewise, the opposite holds true too. I read a study that was done in another country concerning the relationship between plant densities, and plant yields. The study found that when plants were spaced about 2-2 1/2ft. apart the plants had a greater yield each, but when the plants were 1ft. apart, the yield decreased. The overall yield for the whole patch, however, was higher the closer the plants were placed. This indicates that the extra plants you get by having them closer together, produce enough fruit to outweigh the fruit you lose from decreased production per plant. I should also note that I think this was done on a commercial farm. What are your thoughts on the findings of this study?

It says planting the plants closer together yields less tomatoes per plant (i.e. if you plant them 1' apart, you will get less yields of tomatoes per plant) and if you do more spacing between plants you will get more tomatoes per plant. However it then says that by doing higher density planting although you the yield per plant is lower, you will still receive a higher yield overall due the extra plants planted. Which would be the best method to use regarding this?

[Tracydr]

Originally Posted by aimeruni

I have a small plot to garden on, and as a result a very limited amount of space (20' x 20'). I don't want the tomato stand planter to take up more space than growing tomatoes in the ground in a row would; that totally defeats the purpose of making it, as I want it to take up LESS space in the garden, not more.

I'm NOT looking for topsy turvey tomato planters (where it's growing in a hanging container and the plant is upside down).


http://www.pinterest.com/pin/199847302187998972/

This is an idea I have in mind; however it looks like it would take a fair amount of time to make, and would like for it to be smaller with the footprint.

http://urbangardencasual.com/2008/05...down-tomatoes/


This is very simple, but I don't want upside down tomato plants; the plants would need more headroom, since they'd be growing right-side up.


I would like for it to be sturdy, simple to construct, and not take a huge amount of time to make.

With the links shown above, I'd like for the stand to hold multiple pots/buckets.

If anybody has ideas with 'blueprints' or a guide of how to make it, please be specific with the instructions and material list.

Thank you in advance.

Have you considered growing dwarf varieties? I grew them in smallish pots with the flimsy tomato cages. I've also had three of them in a half of a 30 gallon barrel.

[nnjjohn]

Originally Posted by aimeruni

I have a question about the Florida weave method; I'm trying to maximize the amount of space I have by being able to grow more in less space without compensating the health of the plant in the process (i.e. not overcrowding, which I know makes the plants more stressed out, which makes them more prone to disease and infestations from insects)

Does this Florida weave method allow you to plant more in less space, or does is it just a means of supporting the tomato plants and keeping the fruit off the ground.

If the only purpose of FL weave is a means of supporting it, (the key word here is 'if' I don't know that's why I'm asking) but will not allow me plant more in less space, well it's really not what I'm looking for.

I found this excerpt from a site regarding how far apart to plant tomato plants:

Some say that the farther your plants are apart, the more tomatos you will have on each plant. Likewise, the opposite holds true too. I read a study that was done in another country concerning the relationship between plant densities, and plant yields. The study found that when plants were spaced about 2-2 1/2ft. apart the plants had a greater yield each, but when the plants were 1ft. apart, the yield decreased. The overall yield for the whole patch, however, was higher the closer the plants were placed. This indicates that the extra plants you get by having them closer together, produce enough fruit to outweigh the fruit you lose from decreased production per plant. I should also note that I think this was done on a commercial farm. What are your thoughts on the findings of this study?

It says planting the plants closer together yields less tomatoes per plant (i.e. if you plant them 1' apart, you will get less yields of tomatoes per plant) and if you do more spacing between plants you will get more tomatoes per plant. However it then says that by doing higher density planting although you the yield per plant is lower, you will still receive a higher yield overall due the extra plants planted. Which would be the best method to use regarding this?

IT DEPENDS ON A LOT OF FACTORS BUT GENERALLY YOU WANT TO FOLLOW THE RECOMMENDED SPACING.. I WOULD GO HAPPY HALF WAY.. IT ISN'T CRITICAL ESPECIALLY IF YOU ARE VERTICAL STAKING AND SUPPORTING THE VINES.. AS LONG AS YOU HAVE GOOD FERTILE MEDIUM AND PLENTY SUN ..I WOULD ALSO RECOMMEND HYBRIDS THAT ARE DISEASE RESISTANT.. SO INSTEAD OF 3 TO 4 FT YOU CAN SPACE 2 TO 3 FT ..I'VE DONE IT SEVERAL TIMES.. BUT LEARNING TO SPACE A BIT MORE TO MANAGE THEM BETTER.. I STARTED TYPING IN BOLD AND NOT GOING TO TYPE THIS OVER

[Doug9345]

Originally Posted by aimeruni

I found this excerpt from a site regarding how far apart to plant tomato plants:

Some say that the farther your plants are apart, the more tomatos you will have on each plant. Likewise, the opposite holds true too. I read a study that was done in another country concerning the relationship between plant densities, and plant yields. The study found that when plants were spaced about 2-2 1/2ft. apart the plants had a greater yield each, but when the plants were 1ft. apart, the yield decreased. The overall yield for the whole patch, however, was higher the closer the plants were placed. This indicates that the extra plants you get by having them closer together, produce enough fruit to outweigh the fruit you lose from decreased production per plant. I should also note that I think this was done on a commercial farm. What are your thoughts on the findings of this study?

It says planting the plants closer together yields less tomatoes per plant (i.e. if you plant them 1' apart, you will get less yields of tomatoes per plant) and if you do more spacing between plants you will get more tomatoes per plant. However it then says that by doing higher density planting although you the yield per plant is lower, you will still receive a higher yield overall due the extra plants planted. Which would be the best method to use regarding this?

It's consistent with what I've found for just about any plant. Corn is planted much denser than it was 30 years ago. When trying to maximize production per area you need to think in terms of sunlight and not just space for roots. Putting a plant up in the air either with a trellis or as you propose provide more "ground" area, but also cast longer shadows. That's fine if the shadows fall on non ground places, but not much of a gain if they fall on other garden plants.


The other factor about plant spacing is access to the plants.

[aimeruni]

I have some dwarf tomato varieties, but I've only managed to find dwarfs with cherry tomatoes. For my slicers and romas, they're determinate types, but not dwarfs.

Here are the tomato varieties I have...

Slicers

Taxi (yellow, 4-6 ounces per fruit; according to the product description it reaches about 2' tall)
Orange Blossom (orange, 6-7 ounces per fruit; I don't know how big the plant will become, it doesn't specify in the product description)

Cherry (these are my dwarf varieties)

Yellow canary (I don't know how big the plant actually is, but it with the product description it can be grown in 7" hanger baskets and seems to tolerate low light levels well; 1-1/2" fruit)

Orange Pixie (reaches 18" tall and fruit is 1-1/4" in diameter)

Romas

Golden Roma
Green Sausage

I'd love to do vertical gardening and I'd like to accomplish two things with it...

1.Provide support for the plants so the fruit isn't on the ground

2.As I said, maximize production by planting more in less space.

Unfortunately I know nothing about vertical gardening, so I could really use ideas with it and how to actually execute doing so. I don't want whatever I'm using with vertical gardening to cause the plants to compete for sun and/or nutrients. Is there anyway to do vertical gardening without causing the tomato plants (or other veggies) to compete for sunlight? If so, how?

Can somebody please recommend vertical gardening methods that will allow me to plant more in less space if this is possible. Whatever it is, I'd prefer it to be simple and not be extremely time consuming with setting up.

I only have a 20' x 20' plot to work with, and a 3' spacing is only 6 plants per row, which is not an effective use of space at all for me. If I do 2' spacing per plant it's only 10 plants per row, which again, is not a good use of space for me at all.

I'm not trying to overcrowd my plants, I still want to get decent yields in less space without compensating the plant in the process. Is this possible?

[MrBig46]

I cultivate 104 indeterminate tomatoes on the bed 20 'x 16'. All tomatoes with one stem.
Vladimír

[feldon30]

imeruni,

Florida weave is an inexpensive trellising technique that allows you to support many indeterminate tomato plants without staking or caging. Along with pruning, you can pack more tomato plants into the same amount of space.

I have never tried a hanging plant system like you linked, but I have to imagine that the plants hanging in buckets would have a detrimental effect on any plants underneath them, due to reduced sunlight.

I know of no way to increase the yield or decrease the planting space of determinate varieties. They're just not a good use of space, and anyway, there are very few tasty determinates in my opinion.

[nnjjohn]

I believe it,, what cha name them charlie brown specials? get it.. xmas charlie brown tree? omg i guess that was a bad joke