# Sugars and PHC



## John Paul Sanborn (Mar 5, 2005)

There has been more and more in the lit. about good results with using sucrose in the soil, at least on small trees.

Has anyone tried it on a comercial basis?

My read on it is that stressed trees, such as transplants, can translocate sucrose from the soil and utilize it in the leaves.


----------



## Ax-man (Mar 6, 2005)

This is news, from what source did you get this information. It would be interesting to read.

Larry


----------



## John Paul Sanborn (Mar 6, 2005)

Here is the one I could find right off the bat. I could not open it since they wont let me use my regular UN/PW and cannot ever remember the numeric string they gave me

I do remember a few others in the past, and mentiones in product lit from a numnber of organic amendments.

SUGAR FEEDING ENHANCES ROOT VIGOR OF YOUNG TREES FOLLOWING CONTAINERIZATION
Authors: Glynn C. Percival

http://joa.isa-arbor.com/request.asp?JournalID=1&ArticleID=165&volume=30&issue=6&Type=1


----------



## alanarbor (Mar 7, 2005)

I remember hearing Glynn speak on that subject a few years ago. It's interesting, and makes sense, but I have not tried it yet in a commercial setting. From what I've been reading on AACT certain sugars can stimulate some of the beneficial bacteria and fungi in compost tea. So the real question is......... Does the sugar directly impact the tree, or the soil, resulting in that root growth increase? I think if I tried it, I'd have to take some tests to see what it's effect on soil biology is. If detrimental, it could have the same sort of short-term gain, long term downside that sugar has on us when we use it as a stimulant.

Great subject to discuss though!


----------



## begleytree (Mar 10, 2005)

interesting, but I doubt it. it'd be like pouring blood on people after an injury hoping for transdermal absorption.
-Ralph


----------



## alanarbor (Mar 10, 2005)

I really try not to use human metaphors when talking about trees. 

Besides, the sugars dissolved in water would be absorbed by the roots in the same manner as usual, just in a plant availible form, that would not have to be produced by photosythesis in the plant. Of course we can also apply N in a plant availible form, and that hasen't worked out as well as we thought it once did.


----------



## begleytree (Mar 10, 2005)

alanarbor said:


> I really try not to use human metaphors when talking about trees.




Why not, aren't we both living organisms, dependant upon certian specific conditions and nutrients to survive? How are we so far apart biologically that 'metaphors' are uncorrelatable between the two of us?
Should I have said "pour sugar water on a starving man hoping for transdermal absorption", instead of blood? 
We know plants uptake water and minerals via their root system, those, via photosynthesis, produce sugars which the tree uses for food. ( I know, I kept it simple for the sake of arguement.) So how can pouring the food at the roots be of any benefit, unless as stated, by feeding beneficial organisms, whom in turn, help the tree during a stressed time?
I personally think a good dose of mycorrhzal fungi and bone meal would go farther in the long run than sugar.
Instead of any of those, the most important would be (IMO) careful selection of good planting stock, planted correctly, and in the correct habitat.
-Ralph


----------



## alanarbor (Mar 11, 2005)

I know we're above the knowledge of the average person here so human metaphors don't really mess us up. I've just been trying avoid it myself in interactions with customers (i.e. the whole feeding of trees thing) so I try to avoid it here, too. I meant no offense.

But, sugars and starches can be stored in root tissues, right?

the reason I belive root absorbtion is possible, is because sugar will dissolve completely in water forming a solution. So effectively, the plant would absorb it along with the water, much like it absorbs nitrogen that has been dissolved, forming a solution with water.

If the sugar did not dissolve, instead forming a suspension, I'd have to agree with you.

We can agree that our skin is capable of absorbtion, as dermal toxicity exists, but our skin is not made for the purpose of absorbtion, and tree roots are.


----------



## begleytree (Mar 11, 2005)

absolutely no offense taken.
Gotta run for now, will post back later or in the am
-Ralph


----------



## jbw (Mar 12, 2005)

sugar watering of trees

i read the article in the joa concerning this treatment. my perception was that the sugar drench somewhat tricks the tree. the tree believes that it has enough sugar so it doesn't increase its shoot growth (more leaves, more photo, more sugar). thus it encourages more root growth which is an important factor in the establishment of the trees.

has anyone else found this info?? i will be testing it this april on live oaks, pines, red maples and river birches. container grown for 2 years and i will be planting them into field conditions and monitoring the root shoot ration this year.

--in between evolution--


----------



## begleytree (Mar 12, 2005)

Ok, talking animals, sugar is ingested, and is a major componet of dextrose, which the body uses as food. I find it compelling that we consume sugar, but dextrose solutions are fed to us via IV injections. 
I seems to me that we can/do feed the tree with nutrients which comprise known food soultions to trees, and or other useful compounds that the tree converts to energy, wether stored or used, but we don't feed trees the actual food/energy directly. I believe that it is probably minute differences in formulations created within the tree itself which preclude the actual transferrence of exact (food) chemical compounds. As you know, the difference between water and alcohol is but one tiny hydrogen atom. But that one atom makes all the difference.
I also question wether the tree would be able to uptake such solutions directly. Roots uptake nutrients via osmosis, where chemicals/molecules/nutrients can move through a barrier (root walls) from an area of greater concentration, to one of lesser concentration. If the roots are already storing sugars in some form as food to begin with, how would these nutrients cross the gradient to an area within the root itself where they could be beneficial? I am assuming that the concentration of sugars being stored within the root system are at a much greater concentration than would be placed in the soil by man.
I doubt it would be of any help to the tree in the long run, but would be interested in seeing more long term research in the area.
-Ralph


----------



## Doug01 (Mar 14, 2005)

Sorry to cut in on this post. 

Ralph, is your inbox full? Send me a PM.

Thanks,
Doug


----------



## John Paul Sanborn (Mar 14, 2005)

I remember seeing there was a bell curve in efficacy of dosage in at least one study. This made sence to me with your point on osmosis. Sugar also being hygroscopic may cause some water to be drawn out of the tree if the dosage is too high.

Sugars are found in compst naturally, why would the tree not be able to utilize them?

Since I was only mildly interested at the time I did not keep all the lit I've read, but I allso saw that some sugars acted as sigaling chemicals in trees.

I may try it on some stressed silver maples, spike my seaweed sauce on spring fert.

There are a lot of big old SMP that are showing stress and declein with the repeated droughts we've been having here. I think a lot of it is the urban heat buble, you can watch the RADAR and systems break up, or split and go around the Milwaukee metro area.


----------



## alanarbor (Mar 14, 2005)

Sugars are found in compost, but again the question is, are they utilized by the fungi and bacteria, or by the tree directly? The anecdotal evidence is strong that it has some benefit, but the real reason still seems to be elusive. That dosen't stop me from dumping molasses (unsulphured) into the brewer though.

I may have to try some plain sucrose applications, and follow with a soil test to see where the bacterial/fungal numbers go.


----------



## begleytree (Mar 14, 2005)

Let me know how it comes out.

Doug, PM on the way

-Ralph


----------



## Kneejerk Bombas (Mar 16, 2005)

What I do is draw sap from a healthy tree and macro-inject it into a struggling tree.


----------



## alanarbor (Mar 16, 2005)

Uh Huh...............


----------



## Kneejerk Bombas (Mar 17, 2005)

Are you doubting me?


----------



## begleytree (Mar 17, 2005)

I want to hear more about it. Like, how, and why, and what are the results.
-Ralph


----------



## John Paul Sanborn (Mar 17, 2005)

Mike Maas said:


> Are you doubting me?



Yes, that maple suryp costs you too much.


----------



## Elmore (Mar 17, 2005)

*Skeptical but..*

I know that sugar added to soil will tie up available nitrogen. Leaves will absorb glucose and plants have the ability to convert it into fructose and are able to form a union between glucose and fructose forming sucrose. I don't think that a plant can absorb sucrose ; however if the sucrose was broken down by enzymes into the constituents, glucose and fructose, there may be some beneficial results. I certainly don't know but this is interesting stuff.

http://www.myerscough.ac.uk/arboriculture/studentresearch7.asp
http://www.myerscough.ac.uk/arboriculture/studentresearch5.asp


----------



## John Paul Sanborn (Mar 18, 2005)

So corn suryp solids may make a good soil amendment? You could apply to ADM or Cargyl for a grant on that.


----------



## Kneejerk Bombas (Mar 18, 2005)

No, I'm with Aunt Jemima Tree Service now.


----------



## P_woozel (Mar 20, 2005)

I've used superthrive for several years and it works great for planting, stressed trees etc. its just sugar, root hormones and some B vitamins. Kind of crazy writing on the label sort of like Dr. Bronners soap.


----------



## John Paul Sanborn (Mar 28, 2005)

P_woozel said:


> Kind of crazy writing on the label sort of like Dr. Bronners soap.



I think that's what's kept me away from it


----------



## alanarbor (Mar 29, 2005)

Yeah, the superthrive is labeled like snake oil, and makes so many claims, that I hear that old adage "If it seems to good to be true, it probably is."


----------



## P_woozel (Mar 29, 2005)

Look at the ingredients, its the basics needed to help with transplant shock. I've used it for a long time now, on a lot of planting jobs and I know it helps the transition period. Bottle is crazy, one just has to read evereything.


----------



## Nickrosis (Mar 31, 2005)

I refuse to buy anything labeled like that or anything that advertises so distastefully in our trade magazines!


----------



## alanarbor (Mar 31, 2005)

That's the truth. It's labeling and advertising style drive away more customers than they bring in. Even if it's the greatest stuff in the world.


----------



## P_woozel (Apr 2, 2005)

I've never been taken by the crap thats called advertising, if a product meets my needs then I use it. Come on guys lower your noses and use your brains.


----------



## alanarbor (Apr 3, 2005)

There's plenty of other comperable products with coherent documentation. Never mind all the good stuff you can make on your own. If it was the only product out there that did the job to level I need I'd use it.


----------



## P_woozel (Apr 3, 2005)

That was all I was saying, A smart guy can mix the same concoction. Not using the product because of strange labels is foolish. And the lableing is wacky but the simple mix of rooting hormone and sugars works very well, and its something that a lot of arborists are ignorant of. Not to mention its easy to find, at any nursery.


----------



## barrjr1 (Apr 27, 2005)

I was at a ISA seminar recently and they discussed this topic. The speaker stated there were benefits at very low doses, however stated that more damage may be done at higher dosage much like that of NPK in high amounts. Basically he stated that there is still ongoing studies that need to be completed before he would consider trying on clients. However wouldn't you know one of my competitors actually started selling it and I know this because I lost a fert job too him. Haven't seen results on the property that would make me say wow.


----------



## texasnative (May 16, 2005)

I think that the benifit of using sugar is to feed the benificial bacteria that is in the soil. It doesn't benifit the tree directly, it benefits the soil. By improving the condition of the soil, the tree will follow suit. I do agree that too much sugar would be detrimental, as osmosis could be affected. 5 lbs. per 1000sq.' is the rule of thumb. Last Friday, I worked on my first sick tree treatment (see post under compost tea), and applied sugar as well as cornmeal. Of course I can't wait to see the results.


----------

