# Tree Fertilization



## Mikecutstrees (Jan 24, 2010)

I'm thinking of getting into tree fert. a little. I see quite a few large trees on lawns with no input of nutrients. They pick up all of the leaves, sticks etc. and leave nothing to decompose. I think some fertilization would be a benefit to these mature trees. I don't want to buy alot of equipment right now for this. I have a Toro Dingo and I thought I could tow a small trailer with a tank on that and make a pump for it too. Or maybe just spread a dry fert. on the root zone before a rain? What would people on here recommend?..... Thanks... Mike


----------



## derwoodii (Jan 25, 2010)

A simple PH soil test kit would help, you can do the test as sell your skills to the client. Broad spec long lasting with trace elements fertilizer is usually best augment it with mulch as seen required. 
I'm a fan of stressed trees treated with just sugar and water. I have had good results, some have argued not repeatable but I say what the hell costs little has no cons and could help.

Read below a few extracts & try the link good luck 

Journal of Arboriculture 30(6): November 2004

http://www.treelink.org/joa/2004/nov/percival11-04.pdf

Abstract. The influence of sugar (sucrose) applied as a root drench
at 25, 50, or 70 g (0.9, 1.8, or 2.7 oz) per liter of water on root and
shoot vigor, leaf chlorophyll fluorescence, photosynthetic rates,
and chlorophyll content in silver birch (Betula pendula)

In conclusion, applications of sugars at 25 and 50 g (0.9 and 1.8 oz) per liter of water improved root vigor of the majority of trees tested and may be useful in reducing transplant shock in landscape plantings. Although further studies are required to understand the mechanistic basis by which improvements in root vigor occurred, sugar feeding may be an area worthy of further research given the fact that sugars are water soluble, nontoxic, environmentally safe, and inexpensive to purchase

The application of soluble carbohydrate could encourage mychorrizal associations to form in a number of ways. They could act as an initial source of energy for the mychorrizae, i.e. as a biostimulant, causing those fungi already present in the soil to become active.

Keep this A Shigo thought in mind. 

Myth 11: "Fertilizer is tree food."
This is a half truth were the wrong half has become the accepted part. Fertilizers provide elements that are essential for growth. Fertilizers do NOT provide an energy source for trees and other plants.

A food is any substance that provides the essentials for life; an adequate source of elements that are essential, but do not provide energy, and other types of elements that do provide energy (carbohydrates). Unlike animals, trees are able to trap the energy of the sun in a molecule called glucose. THIS is the essential energy source for the tree.

From the soil, trees obtain water and other elements that are essential for life. These do not provide an energy source for the tree.

Yes, soil elements in many chemical combinations can and do provide energy for bacteria and bacteria-like organisms. But trees do not work that way. Correct fertilization should consider the tree and its age and condition, the soil type and pH, the elements lacking in the soil, and the desires of the tree owner. The variables are almost endless.

The entire subject of fertilizers needs a thorough "clean up." Many people do not understand the numbers given to N, P, and K on bags of "plant food!" It is beyond the scope of this publication to try to clarify the subject here. (For more information, see Modern Aboriculture p.232-245.)


----------



## Ed Roland (Jan 25, 2010)

Nice post, derwoodii. 

MCT,
Adding that big bag-O-macros to the soil disrupts the mycorr. relationship.
"Generally, mycorrhizae are only helpful to plants on soils that are extremely low in P. On soils heavily fertilized with P. the fungi do not provide sufficient P to the plants growing theron to be be effective." 
- Keefer
So whats more important? Pumping the soil full of elements and flushing unhealthy growth or ensuring healthy growth through a healthy soil.

And why are we so caught up on mycorr anyway?
"Mycorrhizas are symbiotic association of fungi with the roots of higher plants which help in the uptake of mineral nutrients such as P, Zn, Cu, Fe and K from soil. Besides this, mycorrhizas have been reported to be an important tool in the management of soilborne plant diseases, especially root rots and wilts." - Department of Mycology and Plant Pathology, Dr Y.S. Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry

Use that dingo to bring in the correct mulch.


----------



## Urban Forester (Jan 25, 2010)

"Mike",
As you can see by the 2 previous posts tree "fertilization" is a rather complex topic. The use of macro fert (NPK) is (in my opinion) one of the most over used and misunderstood areas of tree care. If interested in fertilization I recommend going to the ISA website store and get a copy of ANSI A300 part 2-Tree Fertilization. It will explain alot. The use of soil testing cannot be understated. Without knowing what the soil is lacking the application of anything is only guess work. Dr. Shigo said when a tree is in decline there is almost always something wrong in the rhizosphere. Learning what the rhizosphere needs is more important than knowing what the tree needs, since the relationship is symbiotic. Also getting an understanding of biological nitrogen fixation is very important in knowing how fertilizer works in the soil. The bottom line is "Soil Health" is the key to tree vitality. Sometimes what may appear to be a lack of "nutrients" is merely a lack of oxygen or other benefical soil organisms. Accurate diagnosing is the starting point...


----------



## treeseer (Jan 25, 2010)

Urban Forester said:


> I recommend going to the ISA website store and get a copy of ANSI A300 part 2-Tree Fertilization. It will explain alot. .


Actually you can review the current draft version for free, online at the tcia site. Maybe you guys want to submit comments...


----------



## Mikecutstrees (Jan 25, 2010)

Thanks for the great advise. I went to college and took a whole class in soils. That doesn't mean I remember too much though. What everyone is saying makes alot of sence though. I'm going to get a soil kit and start testing some tree soil. Finding out what is needed and then fixing the problem is definately the professional thing to do. Can you do soil tests in the winter?. Thanks.... Mike


----------



## Castenea (Jan 26, 2010)

Mikecutstrees said:


> Can you do soil tests in the winter?. Thanks.... Mike



Depends on how solidly frozen the soil is. If you can dig the soil with a trowel you can do a soil test. If you need a jackhammer, wait untill the soil thaws in the spring.


----------



## treeseer (Jan 26, 2010)

Portable pH meters are great. Mine was $50, very well spent.

What is a Castenea? opcorn:


----------



## Ed Roland (Jan 26, 2010)

This is the cheapest meter. Spend more to get a meter that works. Guy, brand suggestion? What u usin? My clients appreciate a lab report. I like to hand them the raw copy and watch their eyebrows wrinkle. I make $ off generating that report. I make $ off explaining that report. I make $ performing recommendations based on that report.

The refractometer is a gift. The supplied brix scale is enemic.


----------



## MCW (Feb 14, 2010)

woodweasel said:


> So whats more important? Pumping the soil full of elements and flushing unhealthy growth or ensuring healthy growth through a healthy soil.



What you are saying makes sense on household trees but by keeping elements in balance in fruit trees you can limit vegetative growth despite massive amounts of Nitrogen. Tissue testing is another tool you can use as well, as long as a set of nutrient standards are available for that particular species/variety.
You can have a healthy soil and add a lot of fertiliser at the same time, providing it is balanced and getting used.
I am a Horticultural Consultant and do heaps of soil and tissue tests in Agriculture and the most unhealthy ones I see are those in organic farming funnily enough.


----------



## D Mc (Feb 14, 2010)

MCW said:


> You can have a healthy soil and add a lot of fertiliser at the same time, providing it is balanced and getting used.
> I am a Horticultural Consultant and do heaps of soil and tissue tests in Agriculture and the most unhealthy ones I see are those in organic farming funnily enough.



Define healthy soil.

Dave


----------



## S Mc (Feb 14, 2010)

As WW pointed out, if you add nutrients to the soil to "feed" the fungi that develops mycorrhizal relationships with trees, you are going to inhibit or interrupt the establishment of this important symbiotic relationship. This relationship builds as the need dictates. Take away the need...and it will not establish. Feeding takes away the need.

James Urban states numerous times in his book Up By Roots, that you can amend the vast majority of soil nutrient problems by adding organic matter. 

The pH of the soil is of primary importance. If it is "off" it won't matter WHAT you put on if the tree cannot access it. Testing the soil and perceiving that there is an element that is "out of balance" and then trying to "amend" that by augmentation may be futile if the pH is limiting.

If you have people with highly maintained lawns with trees that are struggling, encourage them to dispense with the chemicals they might be using and mulch the trees. You can add 1/4" of organic matter as a top dressing to the lawn and it will like it as well. 

The possibilities of why the trees are struggling can be a long list: Lack of aeration, compaction, irrigation water that has a high saline content, too much water, too little water (most people we know water with a "one-size-fits-all" mind set), and on and on.

Most people are very prepared to accept fertilization as a natural course of action and, therefore, this is an easy sell. However, it is not always in the trees' best interests.

With all due respect, recommendations on a high production orchard should NOT be brought across the board to landscape trees. The desire for maximum yield of a commodity is a distinct goal. Artificially pumping trees full of chemicals/nutrients to produce that yield may satisfy a human-based desire, and I won't go into the pros and cons of that mentality here, but bringing this mindset over to landscape trees is not warranted or healthy.

"Justus van Liebig, 19th-century German chemist, is credited with discovering the link between nitrogen and plant growth, and along with it much of the chemistry that created modern synthetic fertilizers. Toward the end of his life, he recognized that synthetic fertilizers had created an agricultural system that robbed the soil of important recycling functions needed to keep soil healthy. He then championed the beginnings of the principles of organic farming: 'After I learned the reason why my fertilizes were not effective in the proper way, I was like a person that received a new life.'"

Quoted from pg 59 of James Urban's book.

Sylvia


----------



## MCW (Feb 14, 2010)

D Mc said:


> Define healthy soil.
> 
> Dave



Sorry to bring a commercial argument over here, not my intention to upset anyone.

If you guys do a soil test, even in a backyard application, do you get down to the nitty gritty of cation exchange etc?

I do work for commercial orchards that would pass any healthy soil test you'd care to throw at them. Nothing wrong with synthetic fertilisers IF used at the correct ratios. A plant cannot distuinguish between a Potassium ion from pig manure or a Potassium ion from Potassium Nitrate for example.

In saying that I also do work for the odd commercial orchard where their soil has been whipped through inproper use of synthetic fertiliser. However, soils from organic orchards where I've done tests have been in even a worse state. Where they use excessive manure they always tend to end up with a bad N ratio. These guys are trying to gain a yield where they can actually afford to eat but it is very hard to do. This is where marketing comes into play which is what organics is all about.

You are also right about soil pH. The ideal pH for a broad range of nutrient availability is around 6. We have alkaline soils in my area from a lot of Calcium Carbonate. Our pH is generally around 8.2 from areas untouched. We have a lot of Zn, Mn, B and Fe deficiencies.

By the way, the quote above is from a 19th century chemist. Hardly valid anymore. The earth may have even still been flat


----------



## S Mc (Feb 14, 2010)

MCW said:


> Sorry to bring a commercial argument over here, not my intention to upset anyone.
> 
> Nothing wrong with synthetic fertilisers IF used at the correct ratios. A plant cannot distuinguish between a Potassium ion from pig manure or a Potassium ion from Potassium Nitrate for example.
> 
> By the way, the quote above is from a 19th century chemist. Hardly valid anymore. The earth may have even still been flat



This is certainly not an argument but a legitimate discussion relevant to this post, as the OP is debating offering commercial fertilization.

Both synthetic and natural fertilizers can be misused. Citing an example comparing a well-managed orchard that "properly" uses synthetics to an organic orchard that misuses organic fertilizers is the equivalent of comparing apples and oranges.

Your argument of saying that a plant can't distinguish between an organic and synthetic substance is often used as justification for the use of synthetic fertilizers. But this bypasses an important organic function within the soil. That of the breakdown of organic matter by the microbial life within. That function has not changed with the ages. It was not determined by the world being flat but by the realization that it is a necessary part of a healthy biosphere. You never get something for nothing. If you disrupt a function, there is a cause and effect. Just because you have found a way to mask the results, does not mean the consequences aren't occuring.

Hence David's comment regarding healthy soil. The diversity and density of active and properly functioning biological life. This is the symphony of activity that allows things to grow properly and continuously as they have been for thousands and thousands of years.

There is the fact that not all things are meant to grow everywhere. This is an issue that we, people in general, are constantly struggling against, because we want what we want where we want it, with little to no regard to how realistic that is. 

Sylvia


----------



## Ed Roland (Feb 14, 2010)

MCW said:


> Sorry to bring a commercial argument over here, not my intention to upset anyone.



No arguments here. Lets hope they are isolated to the commercial tree care threads.



MCW said:


> If you guys do a soil test, even in a backyard application, do you get down to the nitty gritty of cation exchange etc?



of course, whats your point?



MCW said:


> I do work for commercial orchards that would pass any healthy soil test you'd care to throw at them. Nothing wrong with synthetic fertilisers IF used at the correct ratios.



MCW, I see from your profile that you are an agronomist. Stressing a tree to produce as much fruit as possible is a far cry from the optimum health arborists strive to achieve for client trees.
[friendly jest]


----------



## MCW (Feb 14, 2010)

S Mc said:


> There is the fact that not all things are meant to grow everywhere. This is an issue that we, people in general, are constantly struggling against, because we want what we want where we want it, with little to no regard to how realistic that is.
> 
> Sylvia



I agree Sylvia. The problem is that, for example, our soils are more suited to natives such as Eucalypts. Unfortunately too many gardens in our area have trees planted that are not suited to our conditions, even from other countries - I'm sure it is the same in your area. My experience is not only limited to commercial fruit crops, I also have quite a bit of experience in domestic applications. Quite often I have had to recommend Zn, Mn, but particularly Fe supplements to home gardeners as that pretty tree they've planted doesn't look so pretty anymore.
What has happened in the past regarding synthetic fertilisers is not necessarily happening anymore, hence the reason why more and more organic "type" inputs such as Humic and Fulvic Acids are being utilised.
I am not 100% anti organic, far from it, but I can also see the benefits from synthetic inputs where needed. Unfortunately my dealings with organic orientated people show that they rarely accept both sides of the fence.
The only problem I have with organics (or more so some of the people associated with organics) is that there is too much snake oil around and very few facts to back it up. For example in my job, and my previous job as a consultant in the industry, if a new product entered the market we demanded non biased trial results. If I am to recommend some new Diazotroph formulation that "claims" to add 100 units of N per hectare then I demand proof of this - none was available in this case.
If I was to recommend this to someone and their crop goes backwards, I open myself up to a legal case.
As far as commercial organics go in many crops it is a simple case of nutrient removal. A certain amount of nutrient are removed with the crop, and these have to be replaced. Unfortunately without smart marketing and asking a super premium for their produce, by the time this "balance" has been reached the tree is suffering badly and the farmer is broke.

The quote used earlier regarding a German Chemist from the 19th century would most certainly have been relating to Urea as the synthesised fertiliser - one that I very rarely recommend as it has a habit of creating acid soils and purely vegetative growth. The people that tend to want a lot of it are also the ones more likely to misuse it. Better growers rarely touch urea.

As you mentioned though what works in a home garden may not be relevant to a commercial orchard, however the soil science remains the same, it's just the amount and types of inputs that vary.





woodweasel said:


> of course, whats your point?



It was just a question, that was my point. I have seen some pretty lame soil tests in my time claiming they are something they are not.




woodweasel said:


> MCW, I see from your profile that you are an agronomist. Stressing a tree to produce as much fruit as possible is a far cry from the optimum health arborists strive to achieve for client trees.
> It would be interesting to hear your definition of a "healthy" soil.



Are you saying stressing a tree produces fruit? Stressing a tree produces excessive flowering as a rule, quite often leaf drop, which results in dropped fruit if they even set to start with. To say that synthetic fertiliser stresses trees comes as a bit of a surprise to me.
I am sure that commercial horticulture is a far cry from Arboriculture, but as I said above, the soil science remains the same. 
The proof is also in the pudding, I'm sure what you do works, and I know what I does works, so that shows there are many ways to skin a cat. Unfortunately this is what I am talking about above as far as dealing with people involved in purely organics - in their eyes I am doing nothing but wrecking the soil and poisoning the earth.
My definition of a healthy soil is one that can sustain whatever plant/crop is growing on it. Some people's idea of soil health may relate only to soil organisms which I agree on, however properly used synthetic fertilisers at the right ratios will not kill these beneficials. 
What tests do you get done to determine microbe activity and numbers in a soil? Once again, not a trick question, but an honest one.


----------



## Ed Roland (Feb 14, 2010)

MCW said:


> Are you saying stressing a tree produces fruit?



If not then how do we get our food? Perhaps the better question here is: do _you_ believe our fruit comes from trees that are stress free? Mine does not and I'm not sure i could afford it otherwise. 

My attempt to be humorous rarely ever takes here and one of these days i will learn my lesson. :monkey: My post prior was a poke in the ribs and knot a red face fury.

I'm no treehugger. I'm that rare individual that understands these two things: the e-coli outbreak 2 years back was from uncomposted material on the product. If the grower had used synthetic then those individuals would be alive today. And while the plant may not know the difference the soil certainly does. 

ok, fine. The soil needs it, we give it. Does adding greensand to amend K alter mycorr popuations? Does squirt and fert of a big bag-0-micros alter mycorr populations? Some common sense is endemic to the process.


----------



## MCW (Feb 15, 2010)

woodweasel said:


> If not then how do we get our food? Perhaps the better question here is: do _you_ believe our fruit comes from trees that are stress free? Mine does not and I'm not sure i could afford it otherwise.
> 
> My attempt to be humorous rarely ever takes here and one of these days i will learn my lesson. :monkey: My post prior was a poke in the ribs and knot a red face fury.
> 
> ...



Sorry if I misread you mate. As mentioned sometimes the humerous poke in the ribs doesn't come across on the internet 

You're right, common sense should always prevail. You don't go dosing up a plant in it's natural environment with fert as it shouldn't need it. To get a viable crop (people's perception of viable can vary) from a tree in a non native environment where nutrient availability and soil pH are different to ideal you will have to add synthetic fertiliser. Apart from micros in some situations backyard "ornamental" trees shouldn't need much fertiliser at all, in fact it can sometimes be counter productive, depending on the species. I've lost count of how many people I've done work for that have killed backyard trees because old Fred the fruit grower has given them a bag of Urea to pour on it because it "made his grapevines greener". Some trees can use as much as you give them, others will roll over and die.

I suppose I joined in this thead because the OP asked about adding synthetic nutrients/micros to ammend any deficiencies and a few chimed in with an organic approach, basically condemning the addition of synthetic nutrition. I couldn't help myself!

There are all sorts of issues regarding public health as far as manure and E. coli goes. There is an area with Almonds (I think in California?) where this bacteria is now established in their soil and every nut has to be heat treated (this may be the case you are talking about?). When I was doing nutrient, pest, and disease programs for organic almond orchards they thought their throat was cut when I told them they HAD to use heat treated manures. This is actually a food safety legality but they complained that the heat treatment would lower nutrient availability. The temperatures used for pasteurising is unlikely to have caused any nutrient loss but one grower in particular just wouldn't accept that it had to be done. Because almonds are a ground harvested crop this is a very important thing he had to do. It was against "his" principles of organics.

I just found something very strange at work - some Sumitomo Giberrellic Acid that is certified for organic use in Australia! Now that amazed me. Anyway...

Also let me know what greensand is mate, I've never heard of it out here. I'm not sure if it affects Mycorrhiza populations as I don't even know what it contains. Is the "bag-O-micros" an actual product or a generic term that you use?

I'm not even sure if we have tests available here to determine numbers of Mycorrhiza or what the standard number per gram of soil would be? One thing I do know is that certain micros in large doses such as Cu and Boron are extremely toxic to soil flora and fauna. Other micros such as Selenium can have a negative affect too although rarely needed here. Naturally occurring Selenium toxicity to some grain crops is more likely in our soils from what I'm told.

By the way, I very rarely deal with shotgun aproach nutrition as in one bag does everything. Calcium Nitrate, Potassium Nitrate, chelated liquid elements, liquid UAN to a lesser degree (contains Urea but unfortunately after 9/11 anything with a reasonable % of Ammonium Nitrate is restricted) plus a few others depending on the crop.

Please don't think that I'm not looking at both the organic and "conventional" side of the coin, I am and have had a lot to do with both. I think that ideally in many situations a blend of both is perfect. I have had my fair share of discussions (quite often heated) with some of the 100% organic people I've dealt with. They ask me why they can't get 40 tonne of citrus per hectare like their conventional mate down the road. Fact is they can't and they never will. What is taken out has to be put back in otherwise all you are doing is mining the soil - this always comes around and kicks you in the butt at some stage. To put back 130 units of N per hectare in an organic situation cannot be done in a practical sense, that'll own economically. One common misconception from the old days is that our soilsare high in Potassium. Indeed they are. It's just people don't realise that less than 1% of it is available. This mentality has led to a lot of Potassium deficiency and poor fruit quality as market price is poor or it goes rotten in transport.
Interesting - New studies from South Africa are showing that by coating granular, synthetic fertiliser with humates has the ability to reduce fert inputs by up to 20% on citrus with no yield or quality decrease - some areas in organics can't be ignored 

As far as getting fruit from stressed trees are you getting all hormonal on me?  Heh heh, only kidding. If every tree was 100% stress free at a hormone level we'd never get any fruit and as a consequence no fruit trees (there would be no fruit to get seeds from) as quite often it is the same hormones that cause tree stress that are involved in flowering and fruit set to a small degree (ie: auxins). Auxins are necessary for both plant growth (at low levels) and in herbicides (at high levels). Its been 17 years since I studied plant science at uni down to a hormonal level. It did my head in - very complicated.

Please fill me in on what you guys do though, I find it interesting as its always good to hear what goes on on the other side of the world! Even if I don't always agree 100%  For example what are your soils like? Ours are generally a sandy loam, with areas of clay loam on the river floodplains. Our soils are what many would call "gutless" which may explain why I do a lot of fertilising 

Sorry for dribbling on for so long. I normally stick to the chainsaw section


----------



## Ed Roland (Feb 15, 2010)

Great stuff, MCW. We agree on much more than we disagree. I've a few questions and a few points to try to express but today i have to hit the road. Snow = work! I look forward to continuing our conversation when i get back this weekend.


----------



## S Mc (Feb 15, 2010)

I stand by my words that you can not and should not relate a management regimen that is designed for a high-production orchard to a landscape ornamental. I'm not even insisting go organic over synthetic, even though I firmly believe in the landscape setting this can be achieved the vast majority of times. 

What I am saying is that taking a soil test that shows the nutrients in the soil is not going to give you the full and accurate picture. It does not show what the tree is uptaking. If you start putting nutrients in they may or may not be available to the tree due to pH.

With the micronutrients you applied in your backyard landscape in your reference above, MCW, how did you address the pH first in order to make them available? 

We, and I am speaking of my husband and my's business, are constantly trying to educate our client's that fast growth is not the determining factor to health in a large, woody perennial. They have been bombarded with advertisements that show exaggerated growth and beautiful fruit or flower crops and feel that, therefore, this is how their tree should respond as well. That mindset is not in the tree's best interest for longevity. 

All plant life put exudates back into the soil to feed and develop the biological, living portion of the soil. This mandatory web exists. Ignoring the consequences that we create because of synthetic or mismanaged organic amendments is at the expense of healthy soil...which is a large portion of our Earth's surface. A surface that should be able to sequester a large amount of carbon...and I am not talking about trees here, but the soil itself.

MCW, you are obviously very knowledgeable for the business you are in and I mean no disrespect and have no argument towards that. I just feel your orchard-oriented mindset is not the best recommendations to follow for arboriculture. The illustration of the 19th century chemist was to point out his realization of the important process that synthetic fertilization bypassed...not that one product worked better than another.

Ed, citing an example of misused organics that had tragic consequences undermines all the documented evidence of where the use of chemicals have caused devastation with as tragic results. No synthetic fertilized orchard, that we are aware of, uses synthetic fertilizers without the aid of tremendous amounts of chemicals to keep these synthesized products marketable.

But at this point we have digressed. This is not a thread on how to manage an orchard...which if you want to discuss that in another thread, I will link an article you should read, MCW. 

James Urban stresses over and over again the ability of organic matter to manage the vast amount of landscape issues. I firmly agree with this statement. 

I have no problems with using non-native species. I do recommend that people select SUITABLE species for their microclimate. A lost cause is a lost cause...whether you opt for organic solutions or synthetic.

Sylvia


----------



## D Mc (Feb 15, 2010)

MCW, I am posting this link which I am sure you are going to find very annoying because it is obviously biased in making its point, but no more than the conventional ag industry produces making their point.  But when discussing a subject, it is very important to flip the coin and inform yourself on the opinions and conditions and sciences on the other side. 

This is an oldy but goody and does address several of the issues that you have brought up. There is plenty of supporting "new" science also available if you care to look. 

I find it disturbing that you do not mention the life within the soil, just the nutrient availability. This would be akin to discussing the color red in blood and nothing more. 

Dave


http://www.cnr.berkeley.edu/~christos/articles/cv_organic_farming.html


----------



## MCW (Feb 16, 2010)

S Mc said:


> What I am saying is that taking a soil test that shows the nutrients in the soil is not going to give you the full and accurate picture. It does not show what the tree is uptaking. If you start putting nutrients in they may or may not be available to the tree due to pH.



You may have missed what I'd said earlier Sylivia which is quoted below...



MCW said:


> Tissue testing is another tool you can use as well, as long as a set of nutrient standards are available for that particular species/variety.





S Mc said:


> With the micronutrients you applied in your backyard landscape in your reference above, MCW, how did you address the pH first in order to make them available?



Micros are available across all common soil pH's, just at varying levels. The ideal pH where micros are available however is about 6. In the cases of Fe deficency or other micros I am a big fan of, if soil applied, EDDHA chelates such as Ciba Libfer SP. These are stable at more alkaline pH's but the chelating agent breaks down in the rhizosphere where pH is more acidic, releasing, in this case, pure Fe ions. If foliar applying chelated elements(uncommon in home garden scenarios) you can use EDTA or Lignosulphonated chelates. You can acidify soil quickly by adding sulphur or more slowly ammonia/urea based fertilisers. As mentioned, in our soils we rarely have a problem with naturally occurring acid soils. The most acid soil pH I have seen in hundreds of tests (mainly horticultural) is 6.9
The good thing about chelates is that you are adding pure elements as the amino acid chelating agent breaks down quickly. You don't need to apply, lets say, bucketloads of Iron Sulphate etc. Due to our high Calcium content here sulphates and phosphates tend to get locked up pretty well as a rule.




S Mc said:


> We, and I am speaking of my husband and my's business, are constantly trying to educate our client's that fast growth is not the determining factor to health in a large, woody perennial. They have been bombarded with advertisements that show exaggerated growth and beautiful fruit or flower crops and feel that, therefore, this is how their tree should respond as well. That mindset is not in the tree's best interest for longevity.



I have never said that fast growth in any trees, horticultural or ornamental, is a good idea. The only time I have pushed tree growth is when, for example, citrus are young and not in production yet. This is solely to get these trees in production to start making money though - not saying I agree but this is reality in commercial agriculture.



S Mc said:


> All plant life put exudates back into the soil to feed and develop the biological, living portion of the soil. This mandatory web exists. Ignoring the consequences that we create because of synthetic or mismanaged organic amendments is at the expense of healthy soil...which is a large portion of our Earth's surface. A surface that should be able to sequester a large amount of carbon...and I am not talking about trees here, but the soil itself.



I think you meant to add *mismanaged* synthetic fertiliser as well as mismanaged organic fertiliser.
I think you may be misunderstanding me on my knowledge of soil flora and fauna. You sound like you're trying to argue when I actually agree with you?
I am well aware of how nature works but nature never intended to have deciduous trees in Australian backyards or parklands. This is why soil ammendments are necessary - no amount of mulch, no matter how fancy it is, will correct some soil issues, whether naturally occurring or man made.
For example what sort of mulch would correct a naturally occurring soil pH of 8.6 and get it to a pH of 6 so instead of Eucalypts a non native tree that requires a lower pH can grow there happily?



S Mc said:


> MCW, you are obviously very knowledgeable for the business you are in and I mean no disrespect and have no argument towards that. I just feel your orchard-oriented mindset is not the best recommendations to follow for arboriculture. The illustration of the 19th century chemist was to point out his realization of the important process that synthetic fertilization bypassed...not that one product worked better than another.



You keep referring to me as having an "orchard orientated" mindset, forgetting that I have studied extensive plant science, with no references to agriculture. Many aspects of your "world" so to speak, have filtered through to agriculture and have worked extremely well, despite some people's resistance on "my" side of the fence (it may surprise you that I was one of the first people in my area recommending some organically certified products to non organic growers because THEY WORK). Unfortunately you are failing to accept any use of synthetic fertiliser on backyard trees, no matter how small of an application (including chelated micronutrients that deliver pure elemental ions that only break down in the rhizosphere as a rule in alkaline soils and are used straight away if deficient - despite being of non organic manufacture there is nothing more pure than that).



S Mc said:


> ed, citing an example of misused organics that had tragic consequences undermines all the documented evidence of where the use of chemicals have caused devastation with as tragic results. No synthetic fertilized orchard, *that we are aware of*, uses synthetic fertilizers without the aid of tremendous amounts of chemicals to keep these synthesized products marketable.



I know this wasn't aimed at me but I am well aware of documented evidence of devastating chemicals in the past and present. Sad part is that whenever I've had a discussion regarding dangerous chemicals with someone of a more "natural" mindset they always bring up DDT or other organochlorines. Despite all but one organochlorine (endosulfan) being banned here people continue to use that as a more modern argument.
There have been massive issues with over fertilisation near waterways as well (nitrates and associated algal blooms). Over irrigation has also caused massive problems in my area, not only for horticulture, but unfortunately neighbouring home gardens as well.
Once again please give me credit, I am not known for studying biased literature.
Note the part of your above quote in bold. Although I've become suspect of which side of the fence your business must push the words "synthesized products" hammers it home.



S Mc said:


> But at this point we have digressed. This is not a thread on how to manage an orchard...which if you want to discuss that in another thread, I will link an article you should read, MCW.



I agree it is not a thread on how to manage an orchard, however please don't patronise me by assuming that what I am saying is only relevant in an orchard situation.
I don't mind links from non biased sources. If only you could access my hard drive at work you would see I have a whole folder dedicated to organics and organic priniciples and I have read the vast majority of it. It contains 100's of megabytes of stuff I have accumulated, scanned, downloaded and gathered at various conferences. A lot of organics makes sense, however a lot is unproven, scientifically unsound (I know that word "science" scares some people), howl at the moon claptrap that people accept as fact.



S Mc said:


> James Urban stresses over and over again the ability of organic matter to manage the vast amount of landscape issues. I firmly agree with this statement



I have never heard of this guy, I assume he is based in North America but have no doubt he knows what he is talking about. If I told you that I recommended 100's of tonnes of mulch/compost last year in commercial orchards to increase soil organic carbon (in conjunction with humates) would you even believe me? I agree with his statement too even though I've never heard of the guy 



S Mc said:


> I have no problems with using non-native species. I do recommend that people select SUITABLE species for their microclimate. A lost cause is a lost cause...whether you opt for organic solutions or synthetic.
> 
> Sylvia



I agree 100% Sylvia, unfortunately some people don't do this and I'm sure you'd have met your fair share.



D Mc said:


> MCW, I am posting this link which I am sure you are going to find very annoying because it is obviously biased in making its point, but no more than the conventional ag industry produces making their point. But when discussing a subject, it is very important to flip the coin and inform yourself on the opinions and conditions and sciences on the other side.



Hi Dave.
As mentioned mate I have a massive amount of organic literature and a "reasonable" amount of experience in the field of organics. In my previous job as a Horticultural Consultant in a private business I was the "go to" guy for organics as I was the only one of 8 consultants that dealt with organic growers. Some of these growers are very successful by the way 
Flipping the coin applies to both sides.
Matt


----------



## MCW (Feb 16, 2010)

Never done that ever but went over the 10,000 character limit so have had to cut and paste some into this post. Sorry 



D Mc said:


> This is an oldy but goody and does address several of the issues that you have brought up. There is plenty of supporting "new" science also available if you care to look.



I probably look more than you think. I generally pride myself on the latest knowledge, organic or not. As the Senior Agronomist for 3 stores, in an area with a population of around 45,000, spread over 5 main towns with a large amount of organic and non organic growers, I don't like looking like an idiot by not knowing the answer to a question, organic or commercial. As always though I don't know everything but always endeavour to find out ASAP and get back to the customer. By giving the wrong information I open myself up to all sorts of legalities.



D Mc said:


> I find it disturbing that you do not mention the life within the soil, just the nutrient availability. This would be akin to discussing the color red in blood and nothing more.



I believe I mentioned soil biology quite a bit Dave and do not for one minute underestimate it's importance. I also mentioned that proper use of synthetic nutrients will not affect soil microbe health or activity. I am well aware of the "Nitrogen Cycle" and have a printout stuck on my wall above my desk. It is one of the basic priciples of plant life (and life itself) and organicically orientated or not everybody should know these principles.
Out of interest, what soil tests do you get done in your neck of the woods to determine soil microbial activity?



D Mc said:


> http://www.cnr.berkeley.edu/~christos/articles/cv_organic_farming.html



There are a lot of things I agree with here Dave and believe I may have read this before. I still can't work out why a guy from the Division Of Insect Biology would write an article like this? This will come across as sceptical but I would like to know the inputs used on the "commercial" farming areas referred to in the article which is very well written by the way. Some very respectable people were quoted. OF course it is biased just like a lot of conventional agriculture. It is in all of our best interests to decipher the biased parts from both sides.
Although even more off topic I thought you may also be interested in the fact that the private hort consulting company I worked for bred beneficial insect and mite predators and parasites to minimise insecticide use for our clients. Oh, and I'm constantly arguing with chemical company representatives that I won't use or recommend some of their products.

I'm not as anti Greenie as you guys may think 

Also, not fair that a husband and wife can gang up on me


----------



## Castenea (Feb 16, 2010)

To get out of the Organic argument, our standard soil test at my company give results for pH, phosphorus, potassium, magnesium and cation exchange capacity.

Does this test give results with any meaning for organic content, no. What this test give results for is if any macros are severly depleted, and is the pH in a reasonable range for the trees.

Common issues here include overfertilization and excessive liming by lawncare companies, as our soils here are naturaly in the pH5.5-7.5 range with values in the 6.0-6.5 range most common.

Our soils are normally friable, unless frozen (currently under 2-3 ft of snow), however if the organic content is low, hot dry summer weather can turn the soils bricklike as there is a fairly high clay content.


----------



## S Mc (Feb 16, 2010)

MCW said:


> Also, not fair that a husband and wife can gang up on me



LOL We do run in a pack. 

I would like to say here that I appreciate the discussion and topic. I also appreciate the fact that everyone can discuss this and still remain civil. 

It is easy on the Internet to come across much harsher than intended and I have not meant any of my statements to come across as patronizing...passionate, perhaps, but not patronizing.

There are many points I would still like to discuss but this thread is in danger of being hijacked. Therefore, I will await another opportunity.

To address the concerns or questions of a tree care person in New York, I would be surprised if he was dealing with a high basic soil as found in your neck of the woods, MCW. Possibly more in line with what Castenea is identifying. I don't know.

But if you were to use the illustration of Castenea's, virtually optimum pH, then I would be even more inclined towards mulching the trees. Many lawns have a surprising lack of organic matter as everything tends to get swept away. A top dressing of organic matter there would also benefit the soil and lawn.

The one point I will say again, MCW, is your comment in your first post (I believe) that states plants don't know the difference between organic and synthetic fertilizers...that is true as far as it goes. However, the soil microorganisms do. And that is a very important distinction.

Sylvia


----------



## MCW (Feb 16, 2010)

S Mc said:


> LOL We do run in a pack.
> 
> But if you were to use the illustration of Castenea's, virtually optimum pH, then I would be even more inclined towards mulching the trees. Many lawns have a surprising lack of organic matter as everything tends to get swept away. A top dressing of organic matter there would also benefit the soil and lawn.
> 
> ...



Hi Sylvia.
Apologies if I came across wrong as well.
With an ideal pH on a backyard tree that doesn't need much nutrition I fully support mulch or organic fertiliser.
In a well balanced soil using proper amounts of synthetic products though I'd like to know how you determine soil microbial activity?
I have literature at work that may surprise you but commercial fertiliser companies are not in the business of upsetting these soil organism and plant relationships at all - to do so results in an unhealthy or dead tree. As much as you probably hate these companies and what they stand for they are into sustainability as well and are constantly evolving as far as that goes. They know that if what they manufacture and recommend is not sustainable they are out of business.
I was at a conference about 9 months ago run by Incitec Pivot, probably Australia's biggest fertiliser company, and what their tech guys knew about soil flora and fauna absolutely blew me away. I felt like a stupid primary school child 
Thanks Sylvia and say hi to Dave 
Matt


----------



## D Mc (Feb 16, 2010)

Tag, Ok I'm in. :hmm3grin2orange:

Matt, I'm going to keep this short because the link I am providing is quite lengthy and doesn't need me putting my 2 cents worth in here and there. 

It states what Sylvia and I are trying to get across in a way that I hope you will understand with your background. 

One aspect that this website does not present is research done by a local plant pathologist. He was involved in a multi-year research in conjunction with the Dept of Agriculture in mycorrhizal innoculum and the effectiveness of reclaiming contaminated soils from mine tailings. An astounding side bar of this research was the determination that if nutrients were supplied the mycorrhizae and the plants would not form a relationship and if the relationship had previously been formed, they would break it off to acquire the new food source. I'm not sure this study has even been published yet.

The company in the link below is worldwide and has offices in Australia.

Dave

http://www.soilfoodweb.com/sfi_approach1.html#Benefits


----------



## af7850 (Feb 18, 2010)

D Mc said:


> Tag, Ok I'm in. :hmm3grin2orange:
> http://www.soilfoodweb.com/sfi_approach1.html#Benefits



Awesome share. I rep you now.


----------



## MCW (Feb 19, 2010)

Back again 
Firstly I'm sure what you are saying about mining site reclamation is correct. One of my best friends is the Senior Environmental Officer for a US owned mining company in Australia. I am also sure they are planting varieties 100% suitable and native to the conditions, unlike many backyard tree varieties.
Dave, you think I'm going to argue with you. I agree with nearly everything in the link, it is excellent and I have numerous books on this - it may surprise you that this info is not new. It is once again, basic soil science. I think the reason you believe it's "new science" is because you've never been bothered to read any literature not coming from an organically biased source - therefore you think that anything to do with soil microbial activity and associated balance must have originated from some organic guru. I have university text books on soil science and plant biology from 1993 that outline a lot of the points in this writeup - the majority of what is said has been *proven*, hence I agree. I'm not sure I agree with everything though - saying that there is no evidence that soil bacteria die in the soil is probably correct, as in "no evidence", but it is quite obviously crap as no organism lives forever.
I can assure you that the vast majority of work (and money) being put into soil microbes and the soil and plant balance of these microbes is being done by the major fertiliser companies (OH NO - EVIL!!!). For some reason organic guys always think they have a monopoly on soil microbe knowledge and balance. I've been to numerous organic conferences and non organic conferences over many years. Nothing the organic guys have said is new, all the cutting edge stuff is coming from commercial companies. I have worked on both sides of the fence.
Did you read though about adding Humic Acid in your link? I mentioned Humic Acids in previous posts. I believe that many of the points outlined relate to specific plant varieties in their natural environment. In a "rainforest" type scenario of course you don't have to add anything to the soil, even mulch. Varieties not suited will die out, and varieties that are suited will live on happily. It's called Evolution.
In my game and yours Dave you'll be well aware that people don't often play "rainforest" in their backyards.
Once again, the weblink does not provide proof that the addition of synthetic fertilisers in controlled doses kill soil microbes. I can assure you that Mycchoriza, Nitrosomonas, Nitrobacter etc continue on with controlled inputs of synthetic fertilisers on soil borne plants and from the evidence I have seen in balance as well. The idea that they "die" or disappear with the additon of non organic fert is garbage. If they disappeared the majority of soil borne plants die without question (some don't rely on Mychorriza etc). I have seen this in waterlogged, anaerobic conditions numerous times.
As mentioned please provide me the name of the tests you get done to determine soil microbial activity? Please keep in mind that where I work has accounts with all the major soil testing labs in Australia. If you have NOT been doing the tests then all you are doing is parroting what the organically biased text books have been saying. There is absolutely NO proof that the addition of synthetic fertiliser in controlled amounts after proper soil tests and tissue tests (once again, only valid if proper tissue analysis standards are available for the particular tree/plant) will damage any plant/microbe relationship.
I'm not sure if you have a good grasp on chelated fertilisers but how can a small dose of pure Fe ions for example upset a soil/plant microbe balance? The chelating agent in, lets say, an EDDHA chelate, generally only breaks down in the rhizosphere which is always slightly more acidic - it is also harmless (amino acid based). How can an Iron deficient plant, gaining only Fe ions in appropriate doses all of a sudden have an inbalance with soil microbes if it was deficient to start with? (I know I know, if everything was in balance the plant wouldn't be Fe deficient  Unfortunately not all plants are planted in their ideal conditions and I'm sure Mr & Mrs Homeowner wouldn't appreciate being told they need to pull out that nice tree that their now dead father gave them and plant something more suited to their soils).
I'll say it once again Dave, I agree with most of the things you have said, and the links you have given me - we are so close to being on the same wavelength it's not funny. However, what you have failed to accept is that *ANY* addition of *ANY* synthetic fertiliser, in *ANY* situation is worthwhile. In your eyes, and most guys that are one eyed, pure organic believers, adding any synthetic material to the soil is bad for the plant, soil, the earth, the atmosphere, any potential fruit crop removed from it, and the end user that eats it. This is pure, unscientific garbage and as you can probably tell makes my blood boil.
Everybody has the right to think what they want though mate and it's good that people like yourself and myself can discuss stuff like this. As mentioned, I didn't even know a thread like this would be on AS. I have an after hours chainsaw and tree felling business (heh heh, now you think I hate trees  ) and simply stumbled across it.
As soils and plants are an area that I work with I thought I'd chime in


----------



## MCW (Feb 19, 2010)

Have added a bit more food for thought - 

What happens in open hydroponic situations where there is no soil or associated micro-organisms but plants grow happily? (as in happily I don't mean they are obviously smiling  ).

I'm sure this will make a few of the organic guys choke on their porridge


----------



## D Mc (Feb 19, 2010)

MCW said:


> ... I think the reason you believe it's "new science" is because you've never been bothered to read any literature not coming from an organically biased source ..... I'm not sure if you have a good grasp on chelated fertilisers ...... In your eyes, and most guys that are one eyed.....



For somebody who doesn't know me, how is it that you believe you have a good grasp of my work view and opinions of the 40 plus years I have been in the tree industry?  

This is SOP for when arguments start to run thin to discredit the messenger. 


Dave


----------



## Castenea (Feb 19, 2010)

Lack of soil microbes in my area is not an unknown problem. Often assosiated with new construction, you can have parts of yards where nothing thrives and only a few weeds will grow, when the soils there is checked, the pH is off, or it is spoil from digging the foundation, or where the heavy excavation equipment was parked

As has been indicated for most ornamentals the lees done with the soil the better, as experiments have shown negative response to nitrogen fertilization by some of our common ornamental species (research presented at the MAA conference a few years ago). I do a lot of Ferts and often apply a live spore mix, on many of our clients up untill the last year I probably was doing more good with the water, than anything else in the tank as we had 3-4 doughty years here., but last year was very wet.


----------



## MCW (Feb 20, 2010)

D Mc said:


> For somebody who doesn't know me, how is it that you believe you have a good grasp of my work view and opinions of the 40 plus years I have been in the tree industry?
> 
> This is SOP for when arguments start to run thin to discredit the messenger.
> 
> ...



Dave, I'm not trying to discredit you at all. What I am trying to say is that not once have you given any recognition to non organic fertilisers in a positive light. I am getting back to the original post about synthetic fertilisers and the destruction of soil borne beneficial microbes. Having been in the tree industry for 40 years is great, as long as you update your knowledge. Maybe you have and decided that the organic side is for you, good stuff I say, but trying to drag down synthetic fertiliser additions with it is "SOP" as you put it for organics. 
I'm sure this will come across the wrong way (actually I'm 100% sure it will!) but here it goes - the Senior Agronomist at another store in the same company has been in the industry for exactly 40 years also and is due to retire this year (lovely guy). His knowledge on many things, particularly products, their associated uses, cultural practices, etc is astounding. What he is very short on is the science as to why these do or don't work. Myself and other qualified agronomists are constantly correcting him when he tries to get technical. What I'm trying to say and I've said it before in the Chainsaw section is that associating time spent in the industry (whatever industry) does not mean that your knowledge is somehow more correct than somebody who has been in the industry 15 years. Once again, you CAN have synthetic fertiliser additions and a healthy soil and plant at the same time - an idea you really don't seem to want to tackle at all. If you had been reading non organically biased literature as you (may have?) alluded to in your last post by quoting that section of my previous post you should very well understand this.
Oh and with my quotes in your last post that was excellent editing by the way to try and make me look like I was 100% flaming you 
My argument isn't running thin so to speak, and maybe I don't have a good grasp of your work view and opinions, but I'd bet an internal organ I'm somewhere around the mark on the opinions part as you've well and truly had enough of them here for me to know which side of the organic/inorganic fence you're sitting on. I've got a leg either side and am probably classed by the true organic guys as being inbred or sleeping with my sister! Oh, and if you do have a good grasp on chelated elements please fill me in on what situation you've used them or what you know about them? Then explain to me how they can kill and upset soil microbe balance in controlled doses?
Also, please tell me the soil/plant test you get done to determine soil microbial activity?
Instead of making a statement Dave, I'll ask you a question.

Do you think that the controlled, appropriate inputs of synthetic fertiliser will kill or upset the soil microbial balance with the plant?
I know that uncontrolled inputs can well and truly upset the balance.


----------



## Ed Roland (Feb 20, 2010)

Mikecutstrees said:


> I'm thinking of getting into tree fert. a little. I see quite a few large trees on lawns with no input of nutrients. They pick up all of the leaves, sticks etc. and leave nothing to decompose. I think some fertilization would be a benefit to these mature trees. I don't want to buy alot of equipment right now for this. I have a Toro Dingo and I thought I could tow a small trailer with a tank on that and make a pump for it too. Or maybe just spread a dry fert. on the root zone before a rain? What would people on here recommend?..... Thanks... Mike



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. Besides, if the turf surrounding the tree gets fertilized then the tree gets it too since their roots compete for space in the same area of the soil. 

The shotgun method may have its place but by and large it would be better to research a more sustainable fertilization practice for your clients trees.

Personally, i think we can amend responsibly with products other than just mulch. With that said, i do recommend mulch for most cases.


----------



## MCW (Feb 20, 2010)

woodweasel said:


> 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.



I agree mate. 

For example: 

In Australia we have a South African guru who has implemented an open hydroponics system for citrus. It is hideously expensive to start with and continues to be expensive with massive, constant inputs. I won't use his/her name through threat of legal action as they most certainly would attempt to sue me if I did 
The fruit quality from these trees is exceptional with top packouts and dollars earnt at the market, particularly the export markets.
Due to the excessive growth though these are a haven for insect pests, both sucking and chewing. Californian Red Scale is the worst as due to the increased canopy mass spray coverage is very difficult. Following that are pests such as Light Brown Apple Moth larvae, Brown Scale, Citricola Scale, and Black Scale. All relatively difficult pests to get rid of if good spray coverage isn't available.

Another example:

I have been involved with fertiliser input trials in the almond industry to determine maximum sustainable yields. If you want to see a crop that can soak up nutrients Almonds are a good one to look at.
In this particular trial these trees were given up to 400 units of N/ha (356 lb/acre - mainly N from K Nitrate, UAN, and Ammonium Nitrate - these guys have the licencing for Ammonium Nitrate) and up to 600 units of K/ha (534 lb/acre - K Nitrate, K Sulphate, and sometimes K Chloride) annually.
The guys doing the trial were over the moon, they set new records as far as yields go and this was going to be the new standard for the almond industry.
These yield results eclipsed anything being done in Australia at the time.
Later on (a few years later!) what they have forgotten to tell you is that there are now many instances of sudden tree death (possibly Phytopthera but DEFINATELY soil and root related), and we even found BOTRYTIS (common bunchrot found in grapes) in Almonds!!! This is in an area with an 11" annual rainfall and in a patch on drip irrigation. Not to mention Prune Rust and uncontrollable Bacterial Spot. A disease like Botrytis is uncommon in Almonds throughout the whole world, especially in a climate like ours. They also didn't prune the trees, as per a normal orchard, which artificially inflated their quoted yields - it was like a jungle, you were hard pressed to even walk through there!
What I'm trying to say is that I have seen the way trial results can be twisted and turned on both sides of the organic/inorganic argument.

The other problem with pumping plants beyond their "design" parameters is that they become heavily reliant on that daily watering through summer for example as their canopy and leaf mass becomes "high maintenance".
I have seen entire crops lost when an irrigation pump breaks down and parts aren't available for a few days. Same goes for backyard ornamentals - the ones that have been "pumped" are always the first ones to look water stressed in hot conditions or the first ones to suffer frost damage in colder conditions. (I live in an unusual environment here - Summer temps regularly hit 113°f and up to 118°f and in Winter as low as 12°f has been recorded with temps regularly as low as 20°f in winter).

Another example which is relatively funny as it is happening to me right now! I have 4 pumpkin plants that are growing happily in my garden. I have been feeding these with a product called Rapid Raiser (organically certified pelletised chicken manure) http://www.neutrog.com.au/ , an excellent product called Yara Complex (a granular sythetic fert with most elements) http://www.yara.com.au/files/yaramila_complex_spec.pdf , and have given them a foliar application of an Australian made chelated product called SJB Vigor-Lig which is basically similar to the Yara Complex product but liquid and with chelated micros.
Problem is, these pumpkins are growing too happily. They are flowering heavily, the bees think it's Christmas, it is setting a lot of fruit BUT...

They are growing too fast. Growing tips are starting to show signs of Iron deficiency, the set fruit is growing well till about the 4" mark then going rotten and dropping off. This is a lack of Calcium as none of the above products have any real forms of available calcium, and they are getting Powdery Mildew on the leaves 

This is solely based on the fact I accidentally gave them a double hit of Yara Complex and unfortunately they are growing too close to a mate's organic stonefruit orchard (that's right, I rent a house on a 13 acre ORGANIC stonefruit orchard!!!). He waters a lot and they are getting too much water from both him and myself.
To rectify this they have just been given a small dose of Calcium Nitrate and the watering has decreased. I am now keeping them just above the leaf wilt level. Finger's crossed!
Not good when a Senior Agronomist can't even grow a few pumpkin plants properly however I do specialise in tree and vine crops


----------



## Upidstay (Feb 23, 2010)

Well, I'm no soil scientist, but I have had excellent luck using Bolster liquid as a deep root (preferably) or as a drench. I will often mix in a little macron 20-20-20, more to apease the customer. Straight Bolster, diluted 50 to 1, has NEVER let me down. 

Around here, it is SOP for builders is to bulldoze off the soil and leave fill. You then hafta pay to get your soil back, so people tend to skimp. So do landscape contractors when they plant trees, They give a 1 year warranty, knowing full well that a poorly planted tree will take 2 or 3 years to die completely. That's why I like to add some myco to the soil. I like it at planting time, as it can turn crappy soils around. Seen good results with PHC Verti Mulch after the fact. Do be aware that all mycos are not created equal. Like all else in the organics game, there's way to much snake oil out there.


----------



## BarkBuster20 (Feb 23, 2010)

Nitrogen pellets would work well, if you have a yellowish evergreen, thats what we use on xmas tree farm.


----------



## Mikecutstrees (Feb 23, 2010)

Thanks everyone for all of the good information. I'm reading and learning alot..... Mike


----------



## semiferger (Feb 26, 2010)

Most newly planted trees and shrubs are establishing their root system for the first few years and may not grow much. That's normal. The plants have been fed a rich diet while potted at the nursery and the root system is usually fairly small for the amount of top growth the plant has. After planting, the tree needs to develop its root system to be able to support the top-growth of the plant. Trying to force the tree to produce more top-growth than the root system can handle.


----------



## ropensaddle (Jan 23, 2011)

Healthy soil must factor in structure,texture, cation exchange,buffering capacity,infiltration and peculation, water holding capacity,and 17 essential elements. Wow did I miss something? ah yes, microbial life I am a fan of prescription fertilization and fertilization without prescription is malpractice right? I like to use wood chips here to improve though time but am not limited to it should decency show the need of lacking nutrient. I am really new at this soil stuff I have the testers for ph and the probe but really feel them insufficient and need a good testing facility to send samples to. Extension service is really pretty lame as well imo in regards to full soil and leaf analysis. Anyone know of a great low cost lab as I searched doing it my self and just got


----------



## derwoodii (Jan 23, 2011)

Anyone know of a great low cost lab as I searched doing it my self and just got 

Tons of info in these links to much to digest in one go, perhaps your back yard (from the pictures I saw you got a grand one) could be a good and free lab to test your beliefs. Dr. Ingham gave a intresting talk on holistical approach to whats under our feet 
Soil Foodweb
Soil food web - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## ropensaddle (Jan 23, 2011)

derwoodii said:


> Anyone know of a great low cost lab as I searched doing it my self and just got
> 
> Tons of info in these links to much to digest in one go, perhaps your back yard (from the pictures I saw you got a grand one) could be a good and free lab to test your beliefs. Dr. Ingham gave a intresting talk on holistical approach to whats under our feet
> Soil Foodweb
> Soil food web - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


 
Cool did not know I was an autothoph lol. I guess if I plant food, or raise cattle I create my own energy right?

Testing soil is complicated do you do your own testing? If so what lab equipment and chemicals for extracting minerals do you use and where are they obtained? I admit it would be real handy to do this but micro-biology is hardly my forte ya know


----------



## ropensaddle (Jan 23, 2011)

BTW thanks I plan to read through that in entirety seemed interesting. It seemed to back up organic ideals somewhat. I have many little test subjects in my backyard lol. I will go light and with caution on my larger specimens but experimenting with some I plan to cut is fun and informing.


----------



## ropensaddle (Jan 23, 2011)

ropensaddle said:


> Cool did not know I was an autothoph lol. I guess if I plant food, or raise cattle I create my own energy right?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

Nope wrong again I am a heterortroph


----------



## ropensaddle (Jan 23, 2011)

Food webs sorta backs up the idea that trees are better off with out us:monkey: In urban situations we seemed to create a need for arboriculture by our construction methods and other human activity. Returning the litter layer seems to be a healthy symbiotic relationship to these trees stressed by our activity. I would think it can be also detrimental in areas that stay wet or where respiration or gas exchange could be effected by its use.


----------



## MCW (Jan 23, 2011)

ropensaddle said:


> Food webs sorta backs up the idea that trees are better off with out us:monkey: In urban situations we seemed to create a need for arboriculture by our construction methods and other human activity. Returning the litter layer seems to be a healthy symbiotic relationship to these trees stressed by our activity. I would think it can be also detrimental in areas that stay wet or where respiration or gas exchange could be effected by its use.



I agree but it's also got a lot to do with using plants not native to the area that are unsuited to the soil type and climatic conditions. Insects previously thought to be OK can also become damaging pests to these introduced varieties.


----------



## Jace (Apr 24, 2013)

MCW said:


> Dave, I'm not trying to discredit you at all. What I am trying to say is that not once have you given any recognition to non organic fertilisers in a positive light. I am getting back to the original post about synthetic fertilisers and the destruction of soil borne beneficial microbes. Having been in the tree industry for 40 years is great, as long as you update your knowledge. Maybe you have and decided that the organic side is for you, good stuff I say, but trying to drag down synthetic fertiliser additions with it is "SOP" as you put it for organics.
> I'm sure this will come across the wrong way (actually I'm 100% sure it will!) but here it goes - the Senior Agronomist at another store in the same company has been in the industry for exactly 40 years also and is due to retire this year (lovely guy). His knowledge on many things, particularly products, their associated uses, cultural practices, etc is astounding. What he is very short on is the science as to why these do or don't work. Myself and other qualified agronomists are constantly correcting him when he tries to get technical. What I'm trying to say and I've said it before in the Chainsaw section is that associating time spent in the industry (whatever industry) does not mean that your knowledge is somehow more correct than somebody who has been in the industry 15 years. Once again, you CAN have synthetic fertiliser additions and a healthy soil and plant at the same time - an idea you really don't seem to want to tackle at all. If you had been reading non organically biased literature as you (may have?) alluded to in your last post by quoting that section of my previous post you should very well understand this.
> Oh and with my quotes in your last post that was excellent editing by the way to try and make me look like I was 100% flaming you
> My argument isn't running thin so to speak, and maybe I don't have a good grasp of your work view and opinions, but I'd bet an internal organ I'm somewhere around the mark on the opinions part as you've well and truly had enough of them here for me to know which side of the organic/inorganic fence you're sitting on. I've got a leg either side and am probably classed by the true organic guys as being inbred or sleeping with my sister! Oh, and if you do have a good grasp on chelated elements please fill me in on what situation you've used them or what you know about them? Then explain to me how they can kill and upset soil microbe balance in controlled doses?
> ...




heckova good thread here!


So synthetic fertilizing, does not inhibit microbial activity, unless overfertilized?? Is this true?

Ed, or anyone, have any more comments on this...???


----------



## MCW (Apr 24, 2013)

Jace said:


> heckova good thread here!
> 
> 
> So synthetic fertilizing, does not inhibit microbial activity, unless overfertilized?? Is this true?
> ...



Old thread but yes it's true - care has to be taken whether using organic OR synthetic inputs. I have seen vineyards ruined by the application of far too much composted manure and on the flipside have seen similar things from overfertilisation with synthetic fertiliser.

I have been doing technical work for an organically based vineyard over the last 4 years that simply couldn't produce. It is not a certified organic property but does use organic inputs apart from the odd DMI fungicide via the foliage for Powdery Mildew.
Interestingly a local organic "guru" came and told him that the soil is excellent because it had earthworms and a lovely brown colour (sadly this is as technical as most organic "experts" get - the brown colour was simply tannins that had leached from the grapemark that he'd spread and earthworms are not an indicator of plant nutrient availability). A soil test recommended by me showed Magnesium absolutely off the charts and the highest soil Magnesium that this lab had ever seen.
Due the the charge of Magnesium ions it was displacing a lot of other cations out of the profile. We have used high Calcium inputs (both Calcium Nitrate and Gypsum) over the last 4 years to help displace the Magnesium and the vine health is slowly improving however this will probably be a 10 year exercise to get this vineyard producing like it should. The high Magnesium is naturally occuring on some of our low lying country on the river flats - this was not due to overfertilisation of Magnesium Sulphate or Nitrate.
I'm not trying to start an argument between organic and synthetic practices as both have been shown to work depending on the desired end product however to believe that targeted and well chosen synthetic inputs kill soil flora and fauna is absolute BS. There is data to back me up and most labs I deal with have biological testing available.


----------



## Urban Forester (Apr 25, 2013)

Jace said:


> So synthetic fertilizing, does not inhibit microbial activity, unless overfertilized?? Is this true?
> Ed, or anyone, have any more comments on this...???



The key to your question is found in 2 words "controlled" and "appropriate". First - Controlled - as in the amount of fertilizer or the amount of encapsulation, i.e. slow release ("controlled") nitrogen? The more nitrogen fixation you "request" of nitrogen fixing bacteria, the more humus (food source) is consumed to keep on fixing nitrogen. Therefore replenishment of the humus is needed. Second - Appropriate - only an accurate measurement of current soil conditions can determine "appropriate" (soil test). Lastly, there are other factors besides fertilizer that determine microbial populations (by a LONG shot). macro-pore space, is their adequate oxygen, most soil organisms are aerobic. Is the PH conducive to microbial reproduction. They can be quite picky about that. Organic matter content, (food source), They won't live where they can't eat. Besides endo-ecto mycorr (which everyone is so keen on) there are numerous strains of bacillus that are needed for root elongation, increased storage, etc. I use a 3-1-2 RATIO (not anaylsis) w/ 30% SRN. Its used WITH organic soil amendments after determining need. The complexities of fertilization in the Urban Forest can NOT be understated. Words such as "appropriate" and "controlled" can be interpreted various ways. Are you totally confused yet? :msp_smile:


----------



## MCW (Apr 25, 2013)

Urban Forester said:


> The key to your question is found in 2 words "controlled" and "appropriate". First - Controlled - as in the amount of fertilizer or the amount of encapsulation, i.e. slow release ("controlled") nitrogen? The more nitrogen fixation you "request" of nitrogen fixing bacteria, the more humus (food source) is consumed to keep on fixing nitrogen. Therefore replenishment of the humus is needed. Second - Appropriate - only an accurate measurement of current soil conditions can determine "appropriate" (soil test). Lastly, there are other factors besides fertilizer that determine microbial populations (by a LONG shot). macro-pore space, is their adequate oxygen, most soil organisms are aerobic. Is the PH conducive to microbial reproduction. They can be quite picky about that. Organic matter content, (food source), They won't live where they can't eat. Besides endo-ecto mycorr (which everyone is so keen on) there are numerous strains of bacillus that are needed for root elongation, increased storage, etc. I use a 3-1-2 RATIO (not anaylsis) w/ 30% SRN. Its used WITH organic soil amendments after determining need. The complexities of fertilization in the Urban Forest can NOT be understated. Words such as "appropriate" and "controlled" can be interpreted various ways. Are you totally confused yet? :msp_smile:



Very well written. My biggest problem is when people dump all synthetic or man made inputs into the "bad" category including chelated micros using EDTA, EDDHA, DPTA chelating agents. When they do this it proves they have listened to the standard organic based rhetoric and have no real understanding of soil or plant science.


----------



## Ed Roland (Apr 25, 2013)

Jace said:


> heckova good thread here!
> 
> 
> So synthetic fertilizing, does not inhibit microbial activity, unless overfertilized?? Is this true?
> ...



Well, sure, synthetics are a great tool but applying big bags-o-macros into the soil should not be considered a sustainable approach to tree health. 

Dr. Scharenbroch demonstrates a higher microbial respiration with synthetic fertilizer over biological treatments in this tree study/presentation. Good Dirt – by Bryant Scharenbroch, PhD, The Morton Arboretum @ International Society of Arboriculture

But as MCW points out, having a high number of critters in the soil does not necessarily mean it is a healthy soil for the plants. Probably more about the right kind of critters in the right amount at the right time. see _soil food web_.

Since plants can not distinguish between an organic ion and a synthetic ion you might assume those materials are equally good to use but there are limits to every system. Trees require a higher fungal soil component while grasses enjoy a higher bacterial component. Applying a bag of NPK into the soil can destroy beneficial associations between tree roots and mycorhiza fungi. Mycorrhiza, generally, are most helpful to plants growing in soils that are low on phosphorous. So while the plant may not care about the difference between organic and synthetic, the soil does. 

Organic matter is imperative for long term tree health. Emulate the forest floor with proper mulch and compost. Coarse woody debris is natures slow release fertilizer. If you must amend, do so only after lab testing. Check out Ansi A300 (part 2) and the companion ISA BMP for more on prescriptive fertilization.


----------



## MCW (Apr 27, 2013)

Oh and I should also clarify that there is a big difference too between keeping a 100 year old native tree alive in somebody's back yard and the type of work I do. I'll also be honest in saying that some of the technical aspects that the more clued up members here have discussed is actually quite mindblowing  Many of you are extremely switched on.
Despite having an after hours chainsaw and tree felling business which keeps me sane I have recently switched jobs from one company to another basically doing the same role as a Senior Agronomist specialising in tree and vine crops.

I only jumped in to dispel the myth that all synthetic type fertilisers are bad. Some are for sure and under certain circumstances can be devastating to certain plant species. It also pays to remember that there is a big difference between theoretical and practical.

I'll give you guys an example involving the type of work I do...

The area I am in typically has gutless sand with a pH generally between 8.0 and maybe 8.6 - the organic matter and organic carbon levels are basically nil. Everybody knows the benefits of humic acids, fulvic acids, organic matter, and organic carbon and a number of growers have spent big money increasing organic matter and organic carbon to improve "soil health". For the last 13 years I have been collating data in reference to yields and winegrape quality, in conjunction with soil data (we are a bulk winegrape growing region - not premium like some of the cooler climates). This is where the theoretical and practical benefits of intensive horticulture start to become a bit blurred. We all know of the evidence to suggest that higher organic carbon makes nutrients more available and higher organic matter improves soil health. However the reality is in our situation and soils is that the best performing vineyards have the lowest organic matter contents and organic carbon, while the soils with the highest organic carbon and organic matter are the worst performers.
The fact of the matter is that our soils here have never had high organic matter, have never had high organic carbon, and to try and turn them into the "ideal" soil simply isn't working. You can not get the benefits of higher organic carbon if there are no nutrients to release and at higher soil pH's a number of issues arise with micronutrient uptake. In my programs I rely mainly on foliar applied micros. We are in an ultra low rainfall area too (<11" annually) so any compost or organic matter takes a long time to break down.

I've also attached a few soil tests just so you guys in the states can see what we are dealing with here. These types of soils are great for many species of native Eucalypts but it is not uncommon to have introduced species from the Northern Hemisphere get planted and struggle badly. Although it is not in my job title I do spend a reasonable amount of time advising home owners on why their trees are dying or why their lawn is looking crap. Apart from the occasional chelated micros I rarely recommend synthetic inputs for homeowners as very few of them understand just how much damage they can do simply by throwing out half a handful of certain products at the base of a single tree in their backyard.

View attachment 292578
View attachment 292579
View attachment 292580
View attachment 292581


Also soil flora and fauna is extremely important in many situations but is not a necessity for plant growth in ALL plant species. Hydroponics has put to rest a number of myths from some of the rabid organic brigade. No soil, few microbes, and synthetic fertilisers. As with all intensive agriculture issues can always arise with pest and disease.


----------



## JamesSimmons (May 21, 2013)

You can use any soil kit for testing or you can contact any landscaping service expert for the best solution.


----------



## ropensaddle (May 21, 2013)

JamesSimmons said:


> You can use any soil kit for testing or you can contact any landscaping service expert for the best solution.



Hahahahahaha show me a kit that tests all elements,and tests soil structure,texture,infiltration rate,exchange capacity etc . Landscapers here use colored mulch volcano's and are clueless.


----------

