# 3 Tree Fertilization Techniques_article



## arborscape (Jan 13, 2009)

*3 Tree Fertilization Techniques
*
Landscape and urban trees typically grow in soils that do not contain sufficient elements due to disruption of the nutrient cycle by pavement, buildings and roads. Also, leaves, the driver of the nutrient cycle, are raked up before decomposing and micro-organism's can't break stuff down. 

The key to tree fertilization is distributing the right amount of nutrients at the right time. Macro-nutrients are nutrients that trees need the most and is 
frequently deficient in a tree. Signs are reduced growth, smaller leaves and the yellowing of leaves. Secondary nutrients or nutrients needed in moderate amounts include phosphorus, potassium and sulfur. Micronutrients are nutrients that trees need in small amounts. 

Many times it can be hard to tell what nutrient is deficient as the symptoms may overlap. However, it is worth finding as you may be wasting fertilizer on a tree that needs something different. If you see leaf discoloration or other unhealthy signs on the bark, test the tree to get an idea of what might be missing. 

Tree fertilization application techniques vary based on the foliage, tree condition, the time of year and your preference for using "greener" techniques. 

*1. Surface Application *

The fertilizer is broadcast over the ground surface using a spreader. The advantage is it's ease, with very little special equipment required. The disadvantage is lots of residual chemicals on your
lawn. 

*2. Sub-surface Application*

Sub-surface fertilization techniques are necessary when a tree is surrounded by turf grass or to limit chemical exposure. Turf grass absorbs nutrients more readily than tree root systems so the fertilizer must be applied below turf level. Subsurface fertilization techniques are also necessary where runoff water is common. Two common techniques are drill hole
and injection. 

The drill hole method involves drilling holes around the tree in concentric circles. Holes should extend to the drip line. This allows you to put fertilizer deep enough that turf grass won't reach it but shallow enough so it doesn't leach (drain away) especially during the rainy months of spring. 

Liquid injection uses fertilizer, dissolved or suspended in water. The solution is injected into the soil using a soil injection system. Advantages are better distribution and the benefit of adding water directly into the root zone. 
A disadvantage is liquid injection can create dark, vigorous patches of grass. I sometimes recommend a lawn aeration and fertilization in conjunction with a liquid injection fertilization to combat that. 
*
3. Foliar Application and Tree Injection *

This involves spraying everything with FDA approved chemicals. Which is OK, as long as we remember that DDT was a federally approved chemical at one point! Foliar application is a short term fix to correct minor elemental deficiencies of micro nutrients. Typically spraying the leaves works best in spring, right before a period of active growth. 

Implants and injections are for minor nutrient deficiencies. Tree implants and injections provide a systemic application and can be combined with insect control. The main advantage is that it completely eliminates any residue outside of the tree. However, because it involves creating holes in the tree it is limited to a once a year process and trees have to be 
large enough to handle it. I always look to see if a tree is water stressed before doing this. 

Finally, trees may not require additional fertilization at all. Over fertilization can burn out leaves or cause a tree to grow too quickly resulting in frequent pruning or removal. In Denver or other dry climates, homeowners may fertilize
a tree that actually just needs a deep root watering.

About the author. David Merriman owns ArborScape, a tree service in Denver, CO
He is an ISA Certified Arborist and writes articles about lawn care and tree care.


----------



## hokiewheeler (Jan 13, 2009)

Looks pretty straightforward. The only thing I would change is the part about FDA approved chemicals. They don't govern pesticides or fertilizers. Pesticides are registered with US EPA and fertilizer isn't governed that I'm aware of. FDA only deals with stuff for human consumption.


----------



## RedlineIt (Jan 13, 2009)

Reads pretty good. But:

Step #1 in any fert program is a soils analysis. You can't know where you're going unless you know where you're at.



> I sometimes recommend a lawn aeration and fertilization in conjunction with a liquid injection fertilization to combat that.



Good point. Got to get the sequencing right though, I've done injection fertilizing of trees just after the Lawn Company has been through doing core aeration. Fabulous display of expensive little geysers.  


RedlineIt


----------



## Ed Roland (Jan 13, 2009)

opcorn:


----------



## (WLL) (Jan 13, 2009)

arborscape said:


> *3 Tree Fertilization Techniques
> *
> Landscape and urban trees typically grow in soils that do not contain sufficient elements due to disruption of the nutrient cycle by pavement, buildings and roads. Also, leaves, the driver of the nutrient cycle, are raked up before decomposing and micro-organism's can't break stuff down.
> 
> ...


is this a hand out for the home owner? ill vote in a lil while


----------



## Labman (Jan 13, 2009)

Maybe I have better reading comprehension than the average homeowner, but I clicked on complete sense. As for those that don't understand it, they would do better to contract for tree care. 

One question. I have had bad luck trying to establish I think it was Caahan Firs along my driveway. They look like Frasier Firs, but are susposed to endure clay soil and hot, dry weather better. I have had a number struggle a few years and die. When I dug them out, they didn't have much more in the way of roots than the seedlings I planted. Most of them are about 4'-5' now. Should I assume the ones that have survived, that the roots have grown out to the ends of the bottom branches, and water and fertilize there?


----------



## (WLL) (Jan 13, 2009)

Labman said:


> Maybe I have better reading comprehension than the average homeowner, but I clicked on complete sense. As for those that don't understand it, they would do better to contract for tree care.
> 
> One question. I have had bad luck trying to establish I think it was Caahan Firs along my driveway. They look like Frasier Firs, but are susposed to endure clay soil and hot, dry weather better. I have had a number struggle a few years and die. When I dug them out, they didn't have much more in the way of roots than the seedlings I planted. Most of them are about 4'-5' now. Should I assume the ones that have survived, that the roots have grown out to the ends of the bottom branches, and water and fertilize there?


have you already used fert?


----------



## (WLL) (Jan 13, 2009)

i have voted no on the poll. imo the avarage h.o. has no clue about tree health care,tree nutrition,or tree fertilization. its also sad but true that most tree cutting co's in my area have very little or no knowlage of t.h.c,fert,or nutrition.


----------



## (WLL) (Jan 13, 2009)

welcome to A/S


----------



## Labman (Jan 13, 2009)

(WLL) said:


> have you already used fert?



I have tried punching holes around the end of outer branches. I don't know if you call tha the drip line on firs or not.


----------



## (WLL) (Jan 13, 2009)

Labman said:


> I have tried punching holes around the end of outer branches. I don't know if you call tha the drip line on firs or not.


hmmm, maby the fert has aided in the death of a few of your trees


----------



## arborscape (Jan 14, 2009)

*RE: 3 Tree Fertilization techniques*



(WLL) said:


> is this a hand out for the home owner? ill vote in a lil while



This is actually an article for the web.


----------



## arborscape (Jan 14, 2009)

*RE: Soil analysis is first*



RedlineIt said:


> Reads pretty good. But:
> 
> Step #1 in any fert program is a soils analysis. You can't know where you're going unless you know where you're at.
> 
> ...



Yes, I'll look at that. Thanks.


----------



## arborscape (Jan 14, 2009)

*Re: Fda*



hokiewheeler said:


> Looks pretty straightforward. The only thing I would change is the part about FDA approved chemicals. They don't govern pesticides or fertilizers. Pesticides are registered with US EPA and fertilizer isn't governed that I'm aware of. FDA only deals with stuff for human consumption.



Yeah, that sounds right. I'm just going to get rid of that part. thanks


----------



## pdqdl (Jan 18, 2009)

This article is well written, and easily understood. Unfortunately, it is filled with biased mis-information and clearly was intended to sell expensive tree fertilization methods.

An example: what part of spraying fertilizers wouldn't leave those unsavory chemical all over the lawn surface, just like method #1? 

I could go on, put it would be pointless.


----------



## (WLL) (Jan 18, 2009)

pdqdl said:


> This article is well written, and easily understood. Unfortunately, it is filled with biased mis-information and clearly was intended to sell expensive tree fertilization methods.
> 
> An example: what part of spraying fertilizers wouldn't leave those unsavory chemical all over the lawn surface, just like method #1?
> 
> I could go on, put it would be pointless.


i like the old fashioned way, manual style.


----------



## B-Edwards (Jan 18, 2009)

It makes sence to me and most here but to the average home-owner I will say no. I have found on average (atleast where I live) most people couldnt care less about fert for trees, unless it's christmas tree farmers. But remember I am in a very rural area. But to the more educated customer this is perfect as they are smart enough to understand it.


----------



## Climbing Fool (Jan 18, 2009)

I read this and believe it as an interesting start. 

Pqdl and Treeco. Could I encourgae either or both of you to suggest a basic regimen for tree fertilization that less experienced arborists like myself could use or recommend?? 

I have discussed this concept on other forums and the stumbling block is usually soil testing. Accurate soils testing costs money the avaerage HO is unwilling to spend where I work. Have you alternatives ....?


----------



## TreeTopKid (Jan 18, 2009)

pdqdl said:


> This article is well written, and easily understood. Unfortunately, it is filled with biased mis-information and clearly was intended to sell expensive tree fertilization methods.
> 
> An example: what part of spraying fertilizers wouldn't leave those unsavory chemical all over the lawn surface, just like method #1?
> 
> I could go on, put it would be pointless.



I always have and always will used timed release fertilizer it has far less environmental impact, as does injection of pesticide/insecticide.


----------



## Ed Roland (Jan 18, 2009)

TreeTopKid said:


> I always have and always will used timed release fertilizer it has far less environmental impact, as does injection of pesticide/insecticide.



I cut my teeth coming up through Bartlett Tree so naturally this is the type of fertilization I was accustomed to. It's too much $$ for some companies to let go of. We all grow and learn new aspects of our industry. If not you become stagnant and do more harm than good.

Many fertilizer regimens push top growth at the expense of root development (the bags of macros sold by sponsor's of this site) making plants vulnerable to stressful environments. Frequent, high levels of fertilizer can produce an unbalanced and often unsustainable shoot-to-root ratio. The P disrupts the alliance between the fine root hairs and Mycorrhizae. Mycorrhizae on the other hand, feed plants and stimulate root growth.

Your method has its place but by and large it would be better to research a more sustainable fertilization practice for your clients trees.


----------



## TreeTopKid (Jan 18, 2009)

woodweasel said:


> I cut my teeth coming up through Bartlett Tree so naturally this is the type of fertilization I was accustomed to. It's too much $$ for some companies to let go of. We all grow and learn new aspects of our industry. If not you become stagnant and do more harm than good.
> 
> Many fertilizer regimens push top growth at the expense of root development (the bags of macros sold by sponsor's of this site) making plants vulnerable to stressful environments. Frequent, high levels of fertilizer can produce an unbalanced and often unsustainable shoot-to-root ratio. The P disrupts the alliance between the fine root hairs and Mycorrhizae. Mycorrhizae on the other hand, feed plants and stimulate root growth.
> 
> Your method has its place but by and large it would be better to research a more sustainable fertilization practice for your clients trees.



I always test the soil before I fertilize, and don't regularly fertilize any of my clients, I prefer a more holistic approach with regards to the care of trees. 

I frequently see burn on the leaves of the trees I look after within in the confines of my employment because the ground has dried out after a liquid application. so 'when' I fertilize I use timed release sachets from a supplier that isn't a sponsor of this site. I would however be more likely to encourage my client not to clean up all the leaf matter from beneath there in autumn in order to let natural decomposition promote a healthy rhizosphere.

I have also used mycorrhizae stimulants although I do know the jury is still out on whether they work or not, for my part I seemed to have good results as far as plant vigor goes. 

My work really lies in connecting people and services toward the restoration of woodland, and it's natural understudy.This is taking up more and more of my time. I never have nor ever will be a 'chemical pusher' however I'm aware of their value when treating certain 'individual' specimens.

I have a great deal of respect for the company that you used to work for as they have pushed things forward in so many ways, however we have been using their services for weeks on end for the last few months, and some of their work has been decidedly 'lack luster' .


----------



## Ed Roland (Jan 18, 2009)

TreeTopKid said:


> I have also used mycorrhizae stimulants although I do know the jury is still out on whether they work or not, for my part I seemed to have good results as far as plant vigor goes.



Do mycor inoculations "take"? Data can be found supporting both positions. We _can_ say with a fair amount of certainty, though, that the practice of dumping a big bag of macros into the tank and topping the slurry off with a bag of mycor for soil injection is a waste of product.

Tree fertilization is big business. Perhaps the big "B" leads the way.



TreeTopKid said:


> I have a great deal of respect for the company that you used to work for as they have pushed things forward in so many ways, however we have been using their services for weeks on end for the last few months, and some of their work has been decidedly 'lack luster' .



Most of my experience was with the lab in Charlotte, NC. You would be hard pressed to find a more knowledgeable, hardworking bunch. The individual offices dotting the world, well...



TreeTopKid said:


> so 'when' I fertilize I use timed release sachets from a supplier that isn't a sponsor of this site.



TTK, little more about about this product, please.


----------



## TreeTopKid (Jan 18, 2009)

woodweasel said:


> Do mycor inoculations "take"? Data can be found supporting both positions. We _can_ say with a fair amount of certainty, though, that the practice of dumping a big bag of macros into the tank and topping the slurry off with a bag of mycor for soil injection is a waste of product.
> 
> Tree fertilization is big business. Perhaps the big "B" leads the way.
> 
> ...



You'll notice that I complimented your company with regards to 'pushing things forward', that was obviously directly complimenting the research side of the company. My dissatisfaction was with the work carried out during the last several months by some tree crews (no I don't care to mention who they are that is inappropriate).

I have the utmost respect for the laboratories and research, and I'm very proud of the fact there is one in my home country in Reading.

The product I have used is Nutri Pak but I will not be entering into an internet debacle on the viability of the product as I also feel this in appropriate. 

I totally agree with you when you say the Big 'B' leads the way.

Thanks Weasel. Have a nice day.


----------



## Ed Roland (Jan 18, 2009)

Not looking for an internet debacle. Just lookin for more info. 

You have a nice day, as well.


----------



## Ed Roland (Jan 18, 2009)




----------



## TreeTopKid (Jan 18, 2009)

woodweasel said:


> Not looking for an internet debacle. Just lookin for more info.
> 
> You have a nice day, as well.



That's good! Nutri Pak 16-8-8 i just got a sachet from the garage.


----------



## hokiewheeler (Jan 18, 2009)

To accurately fertilize, each site should be soil tested. Even better would be tissue analysis to see that the plant/tree is taking up what is available. You would then tailor the fertilizer rate to the site, as long as all the nutrients needed were available in the mix. One thing interesting I picked up at a workshop this past fall is that trees in the urban environment are often manganese deficient, while trees in the woods can experience Mn toxicity. Also due to cost and environmental concerns, phosphorus has been eliminated from many lawn fertilizers. Trees draw P from the soil which eventually leads to turf decline and greater P runoff from the landscape (from increased soil erosion). The moral I guess is that trees in the landscape are unique and do require addition of nutrients because leaves are removed. How much, you don't know without soil sampling and tissue testing. The best way to fertilize would probably be by adding back compost to the root zone. You would need to add a lot because compost is low analysis, on the order of 1-1-1 or .5-.5-.5. That would most mimic nature and possibly avoid pushing tree growth with fertilizer.


----------



## (WLL) (Jan 18, 2009)

hokiewheeler said:


> To accurately fertilize, each site should be soil tested. Even better would be tissue analysis to see that the plant/tree is taking up what is available. You would then tailor the fertilizer rate to the site, as long as all the nutrients needed were available in the mix. One thing interesting I picked up at a workshop this past fall is that trees in the urban environment are often manganese deficient, while trees in the woods can experience Mn toxicity. Also due to cost and environmental concerns, phosphorus has been eliminated from many lawn fertilizers. Trees draw P from the soil which eventually leads to turf decline and greater P runoff from the landscape (from increased soil erosion). The moral I guess is that trees in the landscape are unique and do require addition of nutrients because leaves are removed. How much, you don't know without soil sampling and tissue testing. The best way to fertilize would probably be by adding back compost to the root zone. You would need to add a lot because compost is low analysis, on the order of 1-1-1 or .5-.5-.5. That would most mimic nature and possibly avoid pushing tree growth with fertilizer.


rep fer that,good info. i like good ol low analysis dry roots organic food with micorrhizae


----------



## pdqdl (Jan 19, 2009)

Climbing Fool said:


> I read this and believe it as an interesting start.
> 
> Pqdl and Treeco. Could I encourgae either or both of you to suggest a basic regimen for tree fertilization that less experienced arborists like myself could use or recommend??
> 
> I have discussed this concept on other forums and the stumbling block is usually soil testing. Accurate soils testing costs money the avaerage HO is unwilling to spend where I work. Have you alternatives ....?



I would be happy to recommend a basic regimen. Unfortunately, I don't believe that one exists. I personally don't recommend tree fertilization unless there is a demonstrated need, which is rather uncommon in our area. About all I ever see that calls for "fertilization" is iron chlorosis for pin oaks, which is really a soil condition problem. 

There are too many soil types, too many widely different tree varieties, too many environmental conditions to believe that there should be a "basic regimen". To even pursue that goal suggests that the operator is seeking a sales & marketing solution, rather than a tree care regimen.

I occasionally get calls from customers seeking tree fertilization as part of their property maintenance program. I ask them why they wish to fertilize the trees, and they typically respond with a vague answer indicating that they just want to do what is best for them. They are invariably fertilizing the lawn beneath the tree anyway (usually over-fertilizing!), and I assure them that the tree is getting more of that fertilizer than the lawns are.

I believe in throwing fertilizer on the ground and letting the grass and trees fight for it. Typically, you need more fertilizer under the trees just to get the grass to grow there. So far, no one has ever convinced me that the trees don't get more of the fertilizer than the grass. 

I have recommended tree fertilization in heavy clay soils, along with deep aeration methods, when tree plantings are not prospering. Usually it is a case of root-bound transplanted trees, not insufficient fertility.


----------



## pdqdl (Jan 19, 2009)

By the way, soil testing really doesn't cost much. The home owner can invariably take their dirt to the local county extension agent, and get a decent test. 

Don't even think about buying those stupid "test it yourself" kits. I know too much about analytical and quantitative chemistry to think that I could do it myself, and I know that someone with less knowledge than myself would only be fooling themselves. The key to reliable results in soil testing is LOTS of training, a complete laboratory, and standarization, followed by lots of tests, and then chased with more standardization.

I send mine to A & L Laboratories. A bit more expensive than the county extension agent, but much faster response, and you get a better report. If you have questions, you can call them and speak to an agronomist.

http://www.al-labs.com/


----------



## Climbing Fool (Jan 19, 2009)

pdqdl said:


> By the way, soil testing really doesn't cost much. The home owner can invariably take their dirt to the local county extension agent, and get a decent test.
> 
> Don't even think about buying those stupid "test it yourself" kits. I know too much about analytical and quantitative chemistry to think that I could do it myself, and I know that someone with less knowledge than myself would only be fooling themselves. The key to reliable results in soil testing is LOTS of training, a complete laboratory, and standarization, followed by lots of tests, and then chased with more standardization.
> 
> ...




Thanks for the help mate. I should have said it from the start but I live and work in Perth, Western Australia so local recommendations for products or services are probably not going to help. 

The local soil is sandy, low in nutrition, repels water readily and has large quantities of limestone close to the surface. When pH testing for turf maintenance it was regularly 7.5 and even 8.5 in some locations. I have never done a "soil analysis" so I cannot offer any information there but it is interesting that you do not suggest self testing kits. I take your point about the skill and equipment required to get an accurate result. 

Sounds like I need to have done with it and track down a cost effective soil analysis service. In the mean time is mulching the base of the tree as wide as the canopy, (or as wide as the HO will permit), a wetting agent and extra water the right start?


----------



## D Mc (Jan 19, 2009)

Climbing Fool said:


> In the mean time is mulching the base of the tree as wide as the canopy, (or as wide as the HO will permit), a wetting agent and extra water the right start?



Of everything mentioned so far, there is nothing you can do that will be more beneficial for a tree than proper mulching. 

Dave


----------



## arborscape (Jan 19, 2009)

*Great feedback!*

thanks everyone, I have some new ideas to spin this article in a different way.


----------



## hokiewheeler (Jan 22, 2009)

pdqdl said:


> I believe in throwing fertilizer on the ground and letting the grass and trees fight for it. Typically, you need more fertilizer under the trees just to get the grass to grow there. So far, no one has ever convinced me that the trees don't get more of the fertilizer than the grass.



You're spot on here. Throwing fertilizer on the ground does indeed feed everything and the trees will draw the nutrients stronger than the turf will. Chances are if there is a lawn fertility program, the trees don't need anymore. 
As to testing, labs around here typically charge 20 to 30 dollars per sample. OSU extension no longer does soil analysis. They do have a list of labs serving the Ohio area. One thing to consider is that you need to have a lab that is familiar with the soils in your area and their inherent characteristics. There is a lab in Columbus, OH that specializes in landscape (turf and hort) soil sampling and they work nationwide. They also do tissue tests. Most farm co ops (i.e. Sunrise or Town and Country) can provide sampling too.


----------



## Labman (Jan 22, 2009)

Let the trees and grass fight for it? Years ago I tackled a big project while my son was still at home to help. It involved tearing out a large culvert, regrading to let a swale do its work, 100 ton of fill, and moving a bunch of dirt. A year or 2 later, my wife called my attention to a very dramatic line in the grass, much greener on one side than the other. Now I had stirred the dirt around every which way, including swapping some of the clay the builder left with muck from bog I buried. Please don't tell the EPA about me destroying a wetland. It even had willows growing there when we moved here. After some study, I concluded the green grass was on the far side of where I chopped off all the tree roots ripping out the culvert.


----------



## hokiewheeler (Jan 23, 2009)

The greener grass could be caused by fungus decomposing the dead wood debris or other organic material in the soil. Typically the green patches are formed in circles and are known as fairy rings. As the fungal colony grows outward the living part is always at the outside and you see dark green grass because the fungus is breaking down organic matter and releasing nutrients. I have seen it in lawns before, it does tend to be more predominant with willows though. I've seen it happen a lot when willows are removed. It is indicative of a fertility problem in the rest of the lawn. In other words, it looks more green because the rest of the lawn is actually more yellow. In reference to my above post, I was saying that the trees will receive nutrients that are surface applied and will tend to pull it away from the turf. I know on tree farms the fertilizer is usually broadcast. Some tree growers don't even use fert unless it's needed and then only in the first one to two years. The advantage to injection is that you get the chemical below the grass for the most part so the tree is not competing. I don't know whether it's beneficial or not to fertilize trees in the landscape. I know there are downsides to fertilizing but I don't know of any studies that have actually quantified a benefit concerning landscape trees; I will say that it kept me working though.


----------



## Ed Roland (Jan 23, 2009)

TreeTopKid said:


> That's good! Nutri Pak 16-8-8 i just got a sachet from the garage.



Nutri-Pak seems to be a conventional fertilizer inside a "special" plastic bag with small holes allowing the fert to be slowly released.

Futhermore they make these claims on the product website:

"Q. Does the pH level in the soil effect the nutrients coming out of the packet, thereby making them unavailable to the plants for uptake?
A. No, because the moisture going into the packet goes in as a vapor leaving behind the acidity or alkalinity in the water that the pH has effected thereby making the moisture entering the packet pH neutral."

Q. Can I use a root stimulator or Mycorrhizal type product with Nutri-Pak®?
A. Yes, it is recommended to use those types of products with Nutri-Pak®, as it will only enhance Nutri-Pak’s performance.

Q. If Nutri-Pak® last three years, does that mean I can only sell it to my customers every three years?
A. No, because as the tree or shrub grows it will need more packets installed to achieve optimum growth levels, so your customer can add a packet or two each year, installed at the drip line evenly spaced and 6-8 inches deep.

Q. How safe is Nutri-Pak® for the environment?
A. Nutri-Pak® is SAFER for the environment than other fertilizers for the following reasons:

Due to the Nutri-Pak® Micro-Pore packaging, the fertilizer is contained and will not wash away, thus preventing contamination of groundwater supplies, unlike other fertilizers. 
Nutri-Pak® is proven to increase the growth rate of trees or shrubs by up to 125%, resulting in an accelerated conversion of carbon dioxide into much needed oxygen. Here's how:

Carbon dioxide conversion takes place during the growth of the tree or shrub. 
A tree or shrub not fertilized spends the majority of its energy seeking nutrients and has much less energy to convert carbon dioxide. 
A tree or shrub that is fertilized with Nutri-Pak® spends the majority of its energy converting carbon dioxide into oxygen and much less energy seeking nutrients. 
Nutri-Pak® is inserted 6 to 8 inches into the soil. Therefore it is not a threat to people or animals. Other fertilizers that are applied topically and could potentially harm people or animals. 
The polyethylene packet does eventually leave the soil, as it is consumed by the acids and micro-organisms in the soil. Unlike other plastics found in landfills that take hundreds or thousands of years to break down, the Nutri-Pak® packet is totally consumed after several years."

http://www.nutripak.com/faq.html

I believe keeping anabolic metabolism _*slightly*_ greater than catabolic metabolism should be your goal. Doing that without disturbing important relationships between the tree roots and the soil is paramount. Mulch is probably the best way to go in most cases. :dunno:


----------



## pdqdl (Jan 23, 2009)

hokiewheeler said:


> [edited for brevity]
> 
> ... The advantage to injection is that you get the chemical below the grass for the most part so the tree is not competing. ....



Nonsense. 

Buffalo grass roots up to 19 feet deep. Bluegrass, Fescue, and Bermuda grass grows to 6' deep.

I dug up some 10 day old fescue once. The seedlings were 1"-3" tall, the roots were already 18"-24" deep!! I'll admit, however, that the growing conditions were ideal

How long is YOUR fertilizer injector ? Do you REALLY think that you are putting the fertilizer where the grass can't get it?

Think about this too: research shows that the vast majority of tree roots are in the top 12" of the soil. So explain again to me why are you deep injecting the fertilizer? My guess is because the homeowner doesn't have the equipment to do the injections, and that makes it an easier service to sell.


----------



## Labman (Jan 23, 2009)

hokiewheeler said:


> The greener grass could be caused by fungus decomposing the dead wood debris or other organic material in the soil. Typically the green patches are formed in circles and are known as fairy rings. As the fungal colony grows outward the living part is always at the outside and you see dark green grass because the fungus is breaking down organic matter and releasing nutrients. I have seen it in lawns before, it does tend to be more predominant with willows though. I've seen it happen a lot when willows are removed. It is indicative of a fertility problem in the rest of the lawn. In other words, it looks more green because the rest of the lawn is actually more yellow. In reference to my above post, I was saying that the trees will receive nutrients that are surface applied and will tend to pull it away from the turf. I know on tree farms the fertilizer is usually broadcast. Some tree growers don't even use fert unless it's needed and then only in the first one to two years. The advantage to injection is that you get the chemical below the grass for the most part so the tree is not competing. I don't know whether it's beneficial or not to fertilize trees in the landscape. I know there are downsides to fertilizing but I don't know of any studies that have actually quantified a benefit concerning landscape trees; I will say that it kept me working though.



No, it was a straight line right down where the old culvert had been. The grass between the culvert and house was much greener than the grass between the culvert and trees.


----------



## pdqdl (Jan 23, 2009)

More nonsense! 

Woodweasel: they are selling you lies and other misinformation. Their products are probably good fertilizers, but they should tell the marketing department to spend a little more time understanding their product.



woodweasel said:


> Nutri-Pak seems to be a conventional fertilizer inside a "special" plastic bag with small holes allowing the fert to be slowly released.
> 
> ...



Well, that could certainly be true. But is the released fertilizer "special" in some way, or is it just a fancy way to sell more cheap nitrogen as "slow release"? 

Answer: Yes! The MSDS for Nutri-Pak 16-8-8 reveals that it consists of "A Mixture of Ammonium Sulfate [(NH4)2SO4], Diammonium Phosphate [(NH4)HPO4], Muriate of Potash [KCL] and Urea, packaged in a controlled-release packet."

Let me assure you that these are all cheap, soluble, mineral fertilizers, except for the urea, which is not exactly known as a slow release fertilizer. Keeping these chemicals in a slow release bag is probably a good idea, since they are ALL instantly water soluble. That fertilizer blend is so salty, you could use that stuff to melt the snow off your sidewalks. If buried in little holes without their special bags, you would probably see little death zones in the lawn around each deposit, about 1 week after the first rain.




> "Q. Does the pH level in the soil effect the nutrients coming out of the packet, thereby making them unavailable to the plants for uptake?
> A. No, because the moisture going into the packet goes in as a vapor leaving behind the acidity or alkalinity in the water that the pH has effected thereby making the moisture entering the packet pH neutral."



*This is a clever deception! *

"pH" is a logarithmic scale that relates the concentration of H+ (acid) atoms. An H+ atom is smaller BY FAR than any fertilizer atom, smaller even than the water atom that they claim can pass through their special packet. There is NO barrier in existence that can pass water and NOT pass H+ and OH- ions. If the water can get into their packets, so can the "pH" ions. So their statement is utter nonsense.

Since their fertilizer ingredients are "all mineral" ionic compounds, they are all instantly available for uptake by the plants (except the urea), once they diffuse out of the packet. Under nearly all soil conditions, the phosphate ions will react quickly with soil elements to become insoluble, and that reaction IS pH dependent. The ammonium ions are also highly reactive, but plant roots are pretty good at sucking that stuff up. Muriate of potash is exactly what you buy when you go to the grocery store and buy _imitation_ table salt. So far as I am aware, NOTHING can keep that from being "available to the plant"




> Q. If Nutri-Pak® last three years, does that mean I can only sell it to my customers every three years?
> A. No, because as the tree or shrub grows it will need more packets installed to achieve optimum growth levels, so your customer can add a packet or two each year, installed at the drip line evenly spaced and 6-8 inches deep.



Well sure. The more you fertilize, the more you buy. The more you buy, the happier their company will be. But then again, do they mean "optimum growth levels", or do they really mean "maximum growth possible with excessive fertilization" ?



> Q. How safe is Nutri-Pak® for the environment?
> A. Nutri-Pak® is SAFER for the environment than other fertilizers for the following reasons:
> 
> Due to the Nutri-Pak® Micro-Pore packaging, the fertilizer is contained and will not wash away, thus preventing contamination of groundwater supplies, unlike other fertilizers.



Preventing? No. _Reducing_ contamination by making it a slower release: true. Better yet, if you are worried about groundwater contamination: fertilize with organic materials only, and get ZERO groundwater contamination.



> Nutri-Pak® is proven to increase the growth rate of trees or shrubs by up to 125%, resulting in an accelerated conversion of carbon dioxide into much needed oxygen. Here's how:



Much needed oxygen? Since when? Oxygen is typically considered a byproduct of atmospheric carbon capture. Plants manufacture themselves out of sunlight, minerals, and "thin air".



> Carbon dioxide conversion takes place during the growth of the tree or shrub.
> A tree or shrub not fertilized spends the majority of its energy seeking nutrients and has much less energy to convert carbon dioxide.
> A tree or shrub that is fertilized with Nutri-Pak® spends the majority of its energy converting carbon dioxide into oxygen and much less energy seeking nutrients.



Plants don't use much energy "seeking nutrients". They do invest a considerable amount of energy in root development, which is highly desireable. If a plant is grown in an over-fertilized medium, it will have insufficient root development. This predisposes the plants to increased rates of failure in times of stress. Poor soil fertility obviously is to be avoided for obvious reasons.




> Nutri-Pak® is inserted 6 to 8 inches into the soil. Therefore it is not a threat to people or animals. Other fertilizers that are applied topically and could potentially harm people or animals.
> The polyethylene packet does eventually leave the soil, as it is consumed by the acids and micro-organisms in the soil. Unlike other plastics found in landfills that take hundreds or thousands of years to break down, the Nutri-Pak® packet is totally consumed after several years."



That sounds nice, but even paper is predicted to last nearly forever in the anaerobic conditions of a landfill. 20 year old hotdogs have been found that looked as good as the day they were buried.

I am not familiar with the Nutri-Pak product, but it doesn't sound like the best way to fertilize. It sounds overpriced and labor intensive to apply. I believe that any "spot" application of a fertilizer will incline a plant to develop better roots only in the vicinity of the higher concentrations of what it needs. Spot fertilization also has a MUCH greater probability of doing localized damage with excessively high fertilizer concentrations. 

Better: improve the soil fertility across the entire root zone, and have a healthier, more disease and stress resistant plant.


----------



## (WLL) (Jan 23, 2009)

pdqdl, what do you think about Dry-Roots? are you familiar with that product?


----------



## Ed Roland (Jan 23, 2009)

pdqdl said:


> More nonsense!
> 
> Woodweasel: they are selling you lies and other misinformation.



They shant be selling squat 2 me. My post was a retort to post #27.

I know of your passion on this subject and its fun to watch!


----------



## pdqdl (Jan 23, 2009)

Wood: I'm glad to be of service!  




(WLL) said:


> pdqdl, what do you think about Dry-Roots? are you familiar with that product?



No, I have not ever used it, and I don't think I would. I believe that careful use of mineral fertilizers is more economically practical, and I have no bias against "chemicals". I don't suppose it would hurt plants in any way, but it sounds a little bit too "chemical" oriented for me to think people would buy it because they are trying to fertilize with an all-natural product.

Here are their ingredients, along with my thoughts:

sea kelp & alfalfa meal: relatively high nitrogen content for plant materials. I suspect that it would be better for your cattle than for your caladium. I know these are ingredients used in different human and animal food products.

peat humus: Good stuff for soil amendments, little fertilization value.

poultry manure: as good as a natural fertilizer can get, unless you have access to a bunch of guano. Lots of good things in that for plants. 

iron sulfate: all mineral, slightly acidic, it is a common soil amendment. It is probably added to neutralize low pH of some other element in the bag. That, and people are accustomed to thinking that iron is somehow good for everything, including their plants. Cheap ingredient, it probably pays for itself quickly in marketing value.

vitamins B1, C, E: This sounds like a bunch of junk added to make people think it's really great stuff. Unless I am mistaken, plants neither need these vitamins, nor do they absorb them. 

glycine: This is the smallest and simplest of the 20 common amino acids. Apart from it's nitrogen content, and rapid digestion by virtually every organism in the soil, I have no idea why they would add it unless it came with something else. I am beginning to think that they have some industrial source of unusable/excess vitamins, and they are getting it on the cheap and adding it to the bag.

myoinositol: from Wikipedia _"Myo-Inositol was classified as a member of the vitamin B complex (often referred to as vitamin B8), but was found to be synthesized by the human body (thus, declassifying it as a vitamin)."_ _ I can't imagine why they would add this to a fertilizer. _ I don't really know, but myoinositol sounds like a byproduct of B-complex vitamin manufacturing. Added to the mix because it was cheap and sounded really neat. But that is just a Wild-Ash guess on my part.


----------



## Bermie (Jan 24, 2009)

Climbing Fool said:


> Thanks for the help mate. I should have said it from the start but I live and work in Perth, Western Australia so local recommendations for products or services are probably not going to help.
> 
> The local soil is sandy, low in nutrition, repels water readily and has large quantities of limestone close to the surface. When pH testing for turf maintenance it was regularly 7.5 and even 8.5 in some locations. I have never done a "soil analysis" so I cannot offer any information there but it is interesting that you do not suggest self testing kits. I take your point about the skill and equipment required to get an accurate result.
> 
> Sounds like I need to have done with it and track down a cost effective soil analysis service. In the mean time is mulching the base of the tree as wide as the canopy, (or as wide as the HO will permit), a wetting agent and extra water the right start?




Yes to the last part of your post, mulch and supplemental irrigation are a good start point, garden 'aspirin'. As for a wetting agent...I'm not certain its totally necessary, if you start the irrigation slowly with a fine spray over the whole area and gradually wet the soil it should take up. Wet the soil before putting the mulch down. Loosen the soil before wetting...!

We have similar soil conditions to you apparently here in Bermuda, soil pH of 8 - 8.5, and only on average a foot deep, in some parishes very sandy, others quite heavy clay but still high pH and a calcium carbonate bedrock (aeolian limestone) 

Improving the condition of the soil with organic matter and relieving compaction is many times all thats needed...start with the low impact lower cost method, then bump up to other treatments IF its needed.


----------



## hokiewheeler (Jan 24, 2009)

Our fert injector tips were probably 6 to 8 inches long. Why was I injecting? Because thats what the company I worked for did and that's what I was paid to do. Root growth in grasses is tied to top growth. I have never seen a seedling put down 18 to 24 inches of roots when the plant is only 1-3 inches tall. In test holes dug in pastures or unmaintained grass fields, I have seen roots down as far as 36 to 40 inches, not thick though at depth. KBG is not known to be a deep rooted grass typically. Annual rye, the native prairie grasses are deep rooted, KY31 fescue is deep rooted, but these grasses don't tend to push roots deep if the plants don't have a lot of top growth. Lawn roots are typically not more than 3 to 4 inches deep in an old established lawn. In young lawns, it's not atypical to strip the turf with an aerator.


----------



## pdqdl (Jan 28, 2009)

Hokie: I was shocked when I saw the 10 day old seedlings rooted that deep too. But like I said, conditions were ideal: 6"-9" of pulverized topsoil on top of several feet of clean sand. We had made a sand wick to drain water out of an area, but we had to dig it back up. The tiny little roots were nearly invisible, but they were holding the sand together 18"-24" down.

I suggest next time you excavate a hole in some soil, take the time to slice a 2" thick section of topsoil & grass off the side of the hole. Go down a couple of feet. Then carefully, meticulously, wash the the soil away from the roots. They are there, but they are not nearly as easy to find as tree roots. And no, you will never get fertilizer injected below the grass roots with an 8" injector. Unless it is under freshly laid sod.

BTW: in Fantastic Caverns in southern Missouri, they are fond of pointing at the tree roots coming into the roof of the cave. Close to 200' underground!


----------



## hokiewheeler (Jan 31, 2009)

Ok, I'll grant you that injection doesn't eliminate grass competition. I guess we've strayed a little from the OP's questions, but how about this: Injection eliminates nitrogen volatilization. If you put a nitrogen fertilizer on the surface, soil bacteria and the sun act to remove the nitrogen to the atmosphere.


----------



## pdqdl (Feb 1, 2009)

Ok. I'll give you volatization. But at what cost? I can throw three times as much nitrogen on the ground as you can safely inject. Water it in. Then grass and trees have more than enough.

The cost of labor to soil inject is not justified by whatever reasoning is applied. The labor to inject a diluted (safe!) application of fertilizer is WAY more expensive than throwing a granular application of the right amount on the ground.


----------



## (WLL) (Feb 1, 2009)

punch holes, pour in granuals,back fill


----------



## pdqdl (Feb 2, 2009)

granular application in holes is the old fashioned gold standard for tree fertilization. Having done quite a bit of it myself, I can assure you that it has problems.

1. NO WAY can you avoid salt burns to the roots close to the hole. Vastly too high a concentration, unless your nitrogen source is entirely organic (weak), methyl urea, or urea formaldehyde. Both of the latter forms are pretty safe, but they are not found in any tree fertilizer formulations that I know of, and only partly in the very best lawn fertilizers.

Plus, very few tree OR lawn applicators know about them, and are willing to buy them.

2. Dead brown spots in the lawn, close to the fertilizer burns. Not if you are careful, but how often is that always the case?

3. HUGE dark green spots in the lawn (outside the dead spots). Most tree fetilizer guys (liquid & granular) love this effect; they figure that it shows the customer what a good job they did. On the other hand, it makes the yard look like their dog craps & pees in circles around the tree, with the grass growing taller and thicker in clumps.

Why go to all the trouble? Just to take money from your customers? Try earning it: give them good advice and do good work.

If you are really committed to fertilizing with granular fertilizer poured into holes, I can advise you of the fastest and the easiest methods.


----------



## (WLL) (Feb 2, 2009)

pdqdl said:


> granular application in holes is the old fashioned gold standard for tree fertilization. Having done quite a bit of it myself, I can assure you that it has problems.
> 
> 1. NO WAY can you avoid salt burns to the roots close to the hole. Vastly too high a concentration, unless your nitrogen source is entirely organic (weak), methyl urea, or urea formaldehyde. Both of the latter forms are pretty safe, but they are not found in any tree fertilizer formulations that I know of, and only partly in the very best lawn fertilizers.
> 
> ...


all western medicine has side affects . go with the 100% organic grannular with moccorhiaza(sp) I LIKE 2-2-2 and feed 3X a year, i still use the good o'l fashion method. the stuff i use is so safe you could eat it:monkey:


----------



## pdqdl (Feb 2, 2009)

No argument there !

But so much work !


----------



## (WLL) (Feb 2, 2009)

pdqdl said:


> No argument there !
> 
> But so much work !


work=money and doing the old fashion way it requires little tools. i like to offer, advise, sell and provide good healthy tree care but will preform other wanted tree services to make the buyer happy.


----------



## pdqdl (Feb 2, 2009)

Ok. Round two to WLL.

I must admit that I got all my tree fertilization experience doing what the customer requested. Nowadays, I have no trouble talking them into a more practical approach. Since I also sell and do lawn fertilization, they are usually pretty content to take my advice and skip the tree fertilization sold by the other companies. 

Then I get ALL the application business.

If you _really_ like to drill holes in the ground, go buy yourself some "Powder Blue" [38-0-0]. Be prepared to be told by your chemical supplier that it is a special order. It is made of urea formaldehyde, a completely safe, no-burn form of nitrogen. Mix that in to boost your nitrogen analysis. It can also be used in a liquid application for liquid injection. Outstanding slow release, it sits in the soil until degraded by microbial action. So it doesn't go away in the winter time, and doesn't burn in summertime or periods of drought.

But then you could just double aerate the lawn under the tree, fling about 5lbs per 1000 square feet of the powder blue on the ground, and water it in. You would get 2 lbs/1000 sq.ft. actual nitrogen applied in the soil for the lawn & the tree, you would aerate the soil for both, and you would be done about 3 times quicker and do a better job of feeding the tree nitrogen. Do that every other year, and the tree and the lawn will grow like weeds. Other nutrients? That could be added, too.


----------



## pdqdl (Feb 2, 2009)

*If you MUST do liquid soil injections:*

Consider using this stuff. It has good ingredients, especially for the nitrogen source.

http://www.qpg.com/custom/xl_12_24_24_f.pdf


----------



## Haplo (Jan 2, 2023)

pdqdl said:


> you could just double aerate the lawn under the tree, fling about 5lbs per 1000 square feet of the powder blue on the ground, and water it in.



What do you mean by double aerate?


----------



## pdqdl (Jan 3, 2023)

Aeration done properly, mandates 6 to 9 holes per square foot treated. 12-18 holes per square foot would be double aeration.

Cautionary note: some operators sell double aeration as "double pass" aeration, which is not the same thing. That only comments upon how many turns you make across the yard, and doesn't comment on the hole count nor how many areas get skipped when they make passes wider than the aeration width treated.


----------

