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...
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.
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.
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.
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?
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).
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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).
