Tree Fertilization

[derwoodii]

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]

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]

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]

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

Nope wrong again I am a heterortroph

 

[ropensaddle]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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...???

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]

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]

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]

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...???

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]

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 292578View attachment 292579View attachment 292580View 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]

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

 

[ropensaddle]

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.