Tree Fertilization

Arborist Forum

Help Support Arborist Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
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
 
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 :cheers:

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

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.

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?


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 :)
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Also, not fair that a husband and wife can gang up on me :)

LOL We do run in a pack. :clap:

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. :cheers:

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
 
LOL We do run in a pack. :clap:

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

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 :cheers:
Thanks Sylvia and say hi to Dave :)
Matt
 
Last edited:
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
 
:cheers: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 :dizzy: 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 :)
 
Last edited:
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 :cheers:
 
... 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? :dizzy:

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


Dave
 
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:dizzy:

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.
 
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? :dizzy:

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


Dave

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 :cheers:
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
:cheers:
 
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.
:cheers:

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 ;)
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Nitrogen pellets would work well, if you have a yellowish evergreen, thats what we use on xmas tree farm.
 
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.
 
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:confused::)
 

Latest posts

Back
Top