Shop Products
Houzz Logo Print
mrsg47

Best Fertilizer for Orchard with a varieity of trees

mrsg47
9 years ago

Hi all, I am putting my new orchard list together for spring and 'knock wood' we have had little to no winter in RI at all. No snow. Chilly but no snow (don't miss it by the way). My question is about fertilizer. Is there one fertilizer I can use for all of the different fruit trees in my orchard. I Use a special fertilizer for my berries (vegs. and flowers and roses) but my trees need good food. Please help. If you click on my page you'll see the trees I have (two more peach trees arriving this spring). Thanks, Mrs. G

Comments (60)

  • MrClint
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Post removed by author

    This post was edited by mrclint on Sat, Jan 3, 15 at 18:05

  • northwoodswis4
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    "I am now stopping at 33 trees as the orchard now really looks like an orchard (nine years later!)". Yah, sure. Northwoodswis

  • glib
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    If the soil is good, and Ray's advice is unpalatable (but there is a husband in the picture, no?), then urea. But only to rapidly grow young trees. The mature trees get plenty nutrition from wood chips mulch. Also, depending on the site (probably not this site), adding fungi and fungi food at planting time. This is often done using hugelkultur. In my (very poor) orchard soil there was no fungal activity below the surface until I started hugelkultur plantings. I got much better trees this way.

  • drew51 SE MI Z5b/6a
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Yeah with so many trees, I would go with cheaper fertilizers like urea. I wasn't thinking about that. I only have a few trees that I fertilize. I have 14 dogwoods at my cottage, but the soil is so rich, I don't fertilize them.
    I myself think woodchip mulch is really not enough, you need way too much of it to get little compost. About 5 yards of wood chips would be a few bags of compost. Not really very much. So I just add compost myself. I would test soil from time to time to see if you need to add any micronutrients.Some places though only test for a few of them. Hugelkultur works good as you are giving plants huge amounts of compost over time. For me I have to buy wood chips, and compost is a lot cheaper (and better).
    If I got them free I would use them. I do use leaves, but there again not enough by themselves.
    I too use specialized fertilizer, Holly-Tone, Plant-Tone, Tree-Tone are very specialized and completely different from each other. Easy to get. I try other stuff too. I love to experiment. I use alfalfa meal, cottonseed meal, other organic brands. Kelp is cheap and an excellent source for trace elements as is azomite. Beneficial bacteria and fungi, etc. Leaves, coffee grounds, you name it, I put it in my beds.

    This post was edited by Drew51 on Sun, Jan 4, 15 at 6:50

  • insteng
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    I'm lucky my trees are planted downhill from my old barn and holding pen. So when it rains all the old manure washes down and fertilizes the trees. You can tell the path the water takes because the trees are a lot bigger than the others. I never use any other thing on my trees.

  • swampsnaggs
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    consider incorporating some unleached hardwood ashes into whatever fertilization program you settle on. the price is right and they are packed with potash and minerals.

    here is a good link:

    Here is a link that might be useful: the application of wood ashes to agricultural crops

    This post was edited by swampsnaggs on Sun, Jan 4, 15 at 16:24

  • alan haigh
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    I keep a fire going constantly during cool to cold weather and use ashes for fertilizer- mostly as a sweetner and for K. You need to be careful if the pH is near neutral or higher- by weight it is almost as potent as pulverized limestone and a lot quicker- like hydrated lime. I only incorporate it at planting time and otherwise spread it, which is the most typical approach.

  • fireduck
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    In my initial post...I kind of figured this thread would get "technical" and probably a bit advanced for what you want to do. With 33 different fruit trees, a vegetable garden, and a rose garden...you have bit off quite a bit. Your comment of "I don't water" makes me think the level of work needed may be beyond you. I understand how things can get out of hand...if you are not careful. With 20 avocado trees (16 varieties), stone fruit, citrus, and a vegetable garden...I am trying to downsize myself. Getting older does not help. haha

  • mrsg47
    Original Author
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Wood ash sounds great. That I can get! Thanks again, Mrs. G

  • mrsg47
    Original Author
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Fire duck you are so right. I love my roses but the rose garden is also perfect for brambles! and two more trees. And that is only the orchard the other gardens are far smaller but just as prominent. Mrs. G

  • glib
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    wood ash is probably OK in New England due to widespread acidic soils. It was great for me in sandy acidic soils (pH=5.5). Now I live on alkaline clay (pH=7.7) and it does nothing for me. Also, fertilization is about N for the most part. Wood ash has no N. Test your soil first. If, as the OP states, it is a good soil to begin with, it only needs N.

    Yes, through herbivory (your great fruit harvests) you are going to extract some K from the orchard. I guess it is about 200 grams per thousand apples, which is replenished by about 9 lbs of wood ash. Wood ash has a pH of 10.4, and will act as lime. It is not for everyone.

  • drew51 SE MI Z5b/6a
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    With so many trees MrsG you should start grafting to obtain different cultivars. I 'm practicing myself as I would like to breed trees for fun, and a branch would be enough if I needed a cultivar for a cross. Just for fun though. I need to do more than just grow them. Right now working with raspberries and blackberries. Gives me something to do!

  • klem1
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    On Sat, Jan 3, 15 at 16:09 bboy wrote,
    "Soils vary in mineral content even between different parts of the same lot. Always sample your soil and have it analyzed before buying and applying fertilizer in quantity - it is impossible for anyone not having seen a soil test report for your site to know what nutrients may be needed and in what quantity. Sources telling everyone everywhere to use the same fertilizer on the same crop wherever it is being planting are completely ignoring these fundamental facts."
    The above post is to the point and answers the question asked by MrsG. She can take it or leave it and follow any advise she chooses or even do as Ray suggested and just pi,, on it.
    I have questions.
    Hold up your hand if you believe you can give better advise than a lab can after analyzing soil samples.
    MrsG,with all you have at stake why in the world are you bypassing soil samples and asking a bunch of strangers on the net what your soil needs?
    I'm of the opinion that the 5 best gardeners on earth can't even come close to one agricultural engineering student in a lab can. I'm all ears and eager to know if you folks believe farmers waste millions on soil tests when equal or better information is available free on the net.

  • alan haigh
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    I agree that soil samples are a useful and interesting tool, but soil samples only take you so far and leaf analysis provides the information you need if you are trying to obtain a commercial level of productivity or even a more complete idea of what nutrients the trees are really extracting.

    Organically derived N is not accurately revealed in typical acid wash soil tests. There are other limitations.

    I've never done leaf analysis. I will when I encounter a problem beyond visual trouble-shooting but I can see how even a serious hobby grower might find such a test interesting and even useful.

    For the home grower, all that may be needed is an occasional pH test, if that, especially after a test for the original installation. If trees are growing well and there are no signs of deficiency you can wing it by what the tree shows, mainly if the tree has adequate vigor.

    Some chef's make careful measurements and some just add a dash of this or that and taste. With industrial food it is all done by precise measurement.

    A home grower can go by whatever methods they find most pleasurable. Some gardeners play with soil and plants partially as an escape from the modern rigors of careful calculation.

    This post was edited by harvestman on Mon, Jan 5, 15 at 6:34

  • appleseed70
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Mrs.G
    The general recommendation is 1 lb. Nitrogen for every 1" trunk diameter or 1 year growth. This I think is pretty much the universal advice. Most all I've read recommended a balanced fertilizer like 10-10-10. I think this recommendation is still widely hailed because 10-10-10 used to be the cheapest fertilizer one could buy and because it was balanced was seen as (correctly in my view) a good general use fertilizer. In the last decade this (the cost) has changed dramatically. Chemical fertilizers are directly related to the price of natural gas and petroleum since that is their derivative source. The higher concentrations of N per volume weight are generally cheaper due to transit cost and handling. Their price however shifts (for some reason unknown to me) much, much more slowly than the cost per ccf of nat. gas or gal. of gasoline. I've paid close attention to these costs.
    Nitrogen is given as a percentage of weight so a N number of 10 is 10% nitrogen by weight (correct me if I'm wrong here).
    You Mrs. G are an accomplished gardener and you are well aware that their are so many variables in this that specific recommendations are just "aiming" for a target that is never expected to be hit. It's ok because it isn't critical in the least to the home gardener. If you are even remotely close you are probably ok.
    N is king....P and K are important too, no doubt, but N is where it's at. P and K left alone would (in a lot of cases) be ok for a while...not N though.
    The cheapest (by far) source of chermical N (and K...used to be P too) is lawn fertilizer. I don't fully know why this is, but probably due to volume and scale. You have to pay attention when you are out at the big box and hardware stores (especially in the off-season)...they sell it cheap at times, and I'm not talking about ripped bags...though that is an option also.
    I bought 40 lb. bags of straight lawn fertilizer @ .99 cents a bag a couple years ago with a N of I think 27. It was I think phosphate free and I'm not sure about the K number. These were not ripped or damaged and was in-season. So just short of 11 lbs. N for roughly 9 cents a pound, not to mention the K.
    So, if I have a tree with a general recommendation of 1 lb. N I simply broadcast 3 1/2 lb. in the usual way.
    Since early spring is when this fertilization is generally recommended (and heavy rainfall is prevalent) I usually apply half that amount with the other half later. I do this to avoid waste and environmental issues created by runoff of excess N. I aim to keep an adequate amount of N in the root zone as much as my tightly pinched dollar will allow.

    P can be supplied judiciously with the purchase of triple super phosphate (0-45-0). It's around $2 per pound, and is compact and tidy to store and it does store well.

    The trees don't care what the wording on the bag says...as long as they are fed.
    I'm also all-for adding in any free N that comes about like horse, pig, chicken or cow manure or better yet finished compost. If you add in conjunction...just guesstimate and reduce the chemical fert. accordingly. Guesstimate on the low side...organics are nowhere close to chemicals in volume or weight (definitely better though).
    The human pee thing is just disgusting to me and simply does not provide the volume of fertilization required imo. I'm not dissing those that are proponents though....just for me...gross.

  • drew51 SE MI Z5b/6a
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    For me the urine thing is no big deal, but it is illegal for me to do it without collecting it inside, and I just will not do that.
    Actually it still might be illegal as it is not a proper way to dispose of human waste. I agree with that as so many chemicals from medication are changing the Great Lakes.
    I'm on medication although I'm trying to reduce and eventually eliminate the medication via organic methods of treatment. So far so good, it is working.
    My dog provides a lot of nitrogen to my plants but he has favorites. I wish I could tell him which plants to pee on.
    He prefers the blackberries over the trees.

  • mrsg47
    Original Author
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Klem, I do get my soil tested every summer. We have an extension off. that avails itself to people who live on the same island i do every Sunday during the summer. My soil comes in at 5.5 to 6.5. The apples are still small.

    Appleseed thank you for such an explicit response. However, since trees cannot read I have to do that for them, and I do know that too much nitrogen is not really good for fruit production; growth yes, fruit production and size different story.

    I must say, you all have taken time to think this sitch through for me which is why I needed help. Not all help comes from web sites and books, but practical application. What makes sense about the advice I will take, is due to people living in my area, who are familiar with my seasons, humidity, fog and summer heat. I appreciate all of your responses they have all helped. Mrs. G
    Mrs. G

  • drew51 SE MI Z5b/6a
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    I agree about the soil tests, i too take them, but they have limited value too. Good luck, and keep us updated.
    My wife tells me size doesn't matter, so don't worry about the apples! :)

    I am also an islander btw, not full time, but always on island time! We are all very close friends on the island.
    It's a wonderful life!
    Many of my friends work on the Great Lakes freighters
    The boat whistles always go off when they pass our island.
    Waiting for the river to freeze, and Jesse (my dog) and I can walk there.

  • steve333_gw
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    A couple of things I haven't seen mentioned yet in this thread, which may be important:

    I'd agree with those who've suggested a soil test, but it might be worth expanding on the types of tests available and what they tell you. The most common (Ag school/extension) tests use a strong acid extraction solution (or the equivalent) which tells you what total amount of the tested nutrients (NPK usually) are in your soil. Those may or may not be available to the plant depending upon how they are bound in the soil and other factors. You can also have a soil test done which uses a much milder acid solution, similar to what plant roots exude (LaMotte is one such extract), which will give you a better idea of what amount of NPK is currently available to the trees.

    It isn't that one of these tests is "better" than the other; rather they tell you different things, both of which are important to know. There are also tests for the various micro nutrients (S, B, Mn, etc) which can be done, some of which are important to fruit trees.

    Personally, I don't get soil tests done every year, but I do get both types of tests done, so that I have a long and short range view of my soil. The ag school type tests tells me what is ultimately available or lacking, but the LaMotte numbers tell me what the trees will get if I do nothing. Those are the primary numbers I use to determine what needs to be put down for the coming year (plus any long term amendments).

    I'd be hesitant to throw down the "rule of thumb" amount of 10-10-10 or Boron without some measure of what is already available in my soil. The risks are that you put down too much N and may be making your trees more susceptible to fire blight or keep them from hardening off in the fall, or push your boron levels into the toxic zone. Excess P and K are more just a waste of money (but too much K can cause broad leaf weed pressure). Available calcium is also important to good fruit production and is not always available (just balancing the pH does not guarantee that you will be getting sufficient Ca necessarily).

    I am not suggesting one go test crazy. One can gauge many of these things in other ways, like length of last years's growth for N, etc. But there is a lot more to picking the right fertilizer/supplements for your soils than a simple rule of thumb will cover (even though it may work some or even much of the time).

  • mes111
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    For us a "backyarders" who are not commercializing our hobby, would it be correct to say that

    1. We should know HOW our trees should look, behave and bear
    2. We should have a general idea of the type of soil we are growing in. (actually when WE are in the soil, the type of soil is not that important ;) )
    3. By knowing #1, we can deal with the specific deficit and
    4. We can thereby avoid the nerve-racking anticipatory testing other than and basic PH monitoring.

    I think that the dogged pursuit of perfection is the enemy of sanity.

    Mike

  • mrsg47
    Original Author
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Mike, right you are! Then there is nature, bugs, wind, ice, heat, fungus and all the other good stuff that we need to prepare for as well. What I have learned from this thread is that there is plan for everyone, wherever they live. I will sift through the suggestions and then shall be adapt them for my zone and soil. thanks, Mrs. G

  • alan haigh
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Mike you are right. Also the endless pursuit of efficiency is a major source of unhappiness if not insanity. It leads to winemakers reading instruments instead of using their senses and gardeners following specific guidelines instead of employing their own brains and the senses therein.

    Farmers end up getting precise directions on how to get maximum yields sending soil and leaf samples to one expert after sending soil to another expert. They often wind up mostly doing what they are told- especially on huge farms. Beyond the money, how much gratification is in that?

    Look, smell, touch, taste and try to figure it out yourself. When that fails ask for guidance. We home growers don't need maximum efficiency. There tends to be too much fruit even without that.

  • mes111
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Thanx...
    Phew!!!

    I was beginning to worry that my two and three year olds (my trees) were going to report me to child protective services for neglect.

    Mike

  • appleseed70
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Appleseed thank you for such an explicit response. However, since trees cannot read I have to do that for them, and I do know that too much nitrogen is not really good for fruit production; growth yes, fruit production and size different story

    Mrs.G...what I meant when I said "trees cannot read what's written on the bag" was that they are looking for nutrients and don't care whether those nutrients came from lawn fertilizer or tree-tone or whatever. Starks sells fruit tree fertilizer with an N number of I think around 46 or so.
    That's cool and everything, but the cost is high...very high and it derives it's N, P and K in the same conventional ways that lawn fertilizer does. When applied at the correct rate the tree doesn't care whether those nutrients were supplied by lawn fertilizer with perhaps some added P or stark's fruit tree fertilizer at an exponentially higher cost...same goes for tree-tone (though I do think it is a good, although pricey product).

    I wasn't at all clear in my wording, but that's what I meant.

    I do think an area of great importance (perhaps the greatest importance) is the N release rate. Every fertilizer I've ever used (I've used a lot since I'm a recovering over-fertilizer) the N is released fairly quickly and the P and K much, much later. 10-10-10 (the kind I've always had over the last 30 years) is always the same and is especially bad for this. You can look in it and see 3 different "granules"...a month later the N granules are totally gone and the P and K look the same as the day you broadcast them. I'm sure all of you have witnessed this...if not do an experimient. Put two tablespoons of any balanced fertilizer out in an open depression and just watch the decomposition rate.
    This is one area where I think manures, composts and other organics have a big advantage over chemical fertilizers. Overall slower release rate, lower concentrations and I'm guessing (edumacted guess lol) that the delivery is somewhat, if not a lot more balanced.

    This post was edited by Appleseed70 on Tue, Jan 6, 15 at 1:04

  • drew51 SE MI Z5b/6a
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Farmers are professionals and should follow proper guidelines, it's a job. I never became a professional photographer because that would take all the fun out of it. I want to enjoy growing things also. No desire to become a pro, besides the fact their is no money in it.
    Yeah I like to feed and forget and organics do the best job, and I don't have 33 trees. I would not use organics if I had that many.
    Everybody should do what works for them. All gardening is local.

    This post was edited by Drew51 on Tue, Jan 6, 15 at 9:11

  • mrsg47
    Original Author
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Gotcha Appleseed, thanks! Mrs. G

  • alan haigh
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Appleseed, the reason commercial growers like urea, besides the fact that it's cheap, is that it gets the N to the trees when they want it to and not when the soil warms up enough to free up bound N.

    Obviously this is important when you are trying to juice up the spur leaves to help assure a good crop without excessively stimulating overall vegetative growth (thereby shading spur leaves and defeating your effort). But it is also important that the trees have a shot of N while the soil is still too cool to release much through slow release forms, even with young trees that you are just trying to get to grow as fast as possible.

    I've had difficulty sometimes getting adequate vigor in peach trees when I've relied on carbon locked N, although it depends on the site and soil. If you have really good conditions it's not hard to get trees to grow well, even without supplementary fertilizer..

    Please don't take this as a challenge- I'm not saying you don't already know this, but I don't want anyone else to be confused about the issues involved.

  • appleseed70
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    I never once mentioned urea, are you confusing me with another poster? I mentioned the common 10-10-10 which does not typically utilize urea based nitrogen but rather ammoniacal. I just looked up two different brands to be sure and both had 0% urea just like I thought.

    Chemical fertilizers do not require soil warming to release nitrogen to my knowledge...organics probably do though. depending of course on what the organic material is.

    I thought urea based applications were primarily in the form of foliar sprays which are fairly uncommon and even unadvisable in apples due to corkspot?
    Urea nitrogen is not really a useful material to the home orchardist because of it's vaporizing properties. 30-60% N is lost to the aptmosphere in 24 hours without rainfall and it stores like an open bag of Portland cement in a basement. I have a bag here...actually I have a big rock in a bag.

  • alan haigh
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    "This is one area where I think manures, composts and other organics have a big advantage over chemical fertilizers. Overall slower release rate, lower concentrations and I'm guessing (edumacted guess lol) that the delivery is somewhat, if not a lot more balanced".

    Appleseed, this is what I was responding to. Most packaged products use urea because it is the cheapest granular form, but urea and ammonium nitrate are only different by a day or two in terms of availability to plants (some plants can even take up urea directly). Carbon bonded forms require warm soil to really put out.

    Incidentally, P rapidly bonds to other chemicals in the soil and becomes extremely slowly available while K is quickly absorbed by plants- even amounts much more than they need.

  • drew51 SE MI Z5b/6a
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Some plants can take urea up directly but most need bacteria to break it down, Urease is needed to hydrolyze urea into Ammonia. Bacteria, fungi etc do this. I guess some is in the soil too, but must come into contact with the urea. Why these bacteria work faster than the ones that remove Nitrogen from carbon is a mystery to me? Also plants have the ability to take up Amino acids even peptide chains and break it down themselves. So organic fertilizer can be directly absorbed by plants not needing any breakdown. It's a myth that all nitrogen has to be broken down to smaller forms for plants to utilize.
    I agree though urea overall probably works faster but it also goes away faster and is an inefficient form with much waste as pointed out already. IMHO the major difference between chemical and organic fertilizer is efficiency. You get more bang for your buck with organics. Most is utilized by plants, not wasted. You can also buy cheaper forms of organics such as alfalfa and compost. That combo will work as well as say Plant-Tone or any bagged organic.
    I'm not impressed by organic pesticides at all, but organic fertilizers are very impressive.

    Don Shorr a well known expert in Davis California pointed out on his radio show that farmers that use organics long term have better production then those using chemicals. At first the chemical farmers have bigger yields, but that soon stops. Shorr says it's because the soil becomes depleted of nutrients where with organics the soil over time becomes richer and richer, and produces more and more with time.
    Don Shorr is a plant nerd and I enjoy listening to his show. He not only knows the name of every plant group he can spell any genus-species of any plant, he is a total nerd, i.e has a very high IQ.

    I know with trees you guys say we should at times limit nutrition, and/or water, maybe so? I really don't know? I do know for general gardening it's a good idea to load up your soil with organics. Most veggies are nutrition hogs, and you're taking out product you need to replace what was used to make it.

    One of my concerns about limiting food for trees is that a stressed tree is a target for pest attack. Most pests borers etc look for weak trees to infect. In a way they are natures way of removing weak plants. The lion goes after young prey as they are not as fast as mature animals. In general predators go after the weak, same with plant pathogens. Sure they can attack healthy plants, but given a choice go for the weak and sick ones. So keeping your trees unstressed to me means less pest pressure. I'm willing to sacrifice brix for longevity myself. It depends what you want or expect out of your crop.

    This post was edited by Drew51 on Wed, Jan 7, 15 at 9:40

  • plumhillfarm
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Hi, Well, the religion factor in organics has been discussed many times, people who are all the way on one side or the other have things to talk about, people who are in the middle get the benefits from both (ie only chemical is bad, only organic is unaffordable, increases P pollution and increases salts due to the low N in organic fertilizers). When I started my orchard I put 6" of aged manure around each tree when they were little, then fertilized them with a combo of 1 part 10:10:10, 0.5 parts urea, 1 part wood ashes and 4 parts compost for 10 years. The result was very good tasty crops but after 10 years the soil became to basic and I applied 100 lb sulfur/acre and skipped the wood ashes. The trees took off, I will be adding back in the wood ashes (which contain essentially all the minerals trees need) as well as sulfur to balance the pH. I think alot of the low flavor fruit is due to low low mineral levels in the soil, so wood ashes add a lot if you can keep the pH level.

  • drew51 SE MI Z5b/6a
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Well, the religion factor in organics has been discussed many times,

    That kept me away from it for a long time. Like decades.
    I still can't stand it.

  • appleseed70
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    plumhill...good point about the wood ashes. My neighbor at my old place used to save his for me (in fact, he spread them for me too). I agree they are a good source of fertilization...usually free too.
    I read you have to be careful not to use the colored shiny newspaper adds for fire starting though. Apparently they contain some poisonous heavy metals. I do know that many of them burn with blue/green flames when lit.

    Some even swear by coal ashes, but analysis of them shows they have little to add in the way of good stuff and contain a lot of bad stuff. My good friend uses them on everything though and he sure grows some nice looking stuff...including fruit trees.

  • drew51 SE MI Z5b/6a
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    I read you have to be careful not to use the colored shiny newspaper adds for fire starting though. Apparently they contain some poisonous heavy metals.

    Well petrolium used to be used that contained heavy metals. But most newspapers use soy now. They switched for the safety of the workers. Turns out it works better! Most objection of shiny colored paper from organic people is that a GMO strain of Soy bean is used to produce the ink. I guess also some zinc and copper are still in the soy too, probably the copper makes the colored flames. These metals can be toxic. I suspect it's a low amount.

    A big difference between coal and charcoal. Coal contains many heavy metals like mercury. Charcoal can have some coal, but main stream brands do not. KIngsford when asked if it can be used said no, it's not meant for gardening. No reason given. . I would avoid both. Charcoal is probably safe, people said the binders when molding are bad, but all of the binders are organic.

    This post was edited by Drew51 on Thu, Jan 8, 15 at 16:14

  • appleseed70
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    I live near a Kingsford plant which is situated right next to a large paper mill. I think the charcoal plant uses spoils from the wood feedstock from the paper mill to make the charcoal. I don't know what binders are used.

    I think charcoal binds nitrogen though...right? I'm not sure charcoal would be a good idea unless N leaching was an issue. I doubt it would harm anything though.

    Drew...I know the soy ink is used in the newsprint, but somehow I thought the shiny inserts used a different toxic ink. As you said, I'm certain there is copper in it it...it burns very green.

  • Michael
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Hman: I'm sure you know testing soil for it's % O M can provide an estimate of how much N will become available from it during a growing season.

    Are the Ca Cl sprays necessary when trees are growing in calcareous soil loaded with Ca already?

    Seems K fertilizing might be even more important being it is a cation competing for sites with all of the huge amounts of Ca and Mg cations in calcareous soils.

    I have no problems with using urea, just don't plop it down on the soil surface on a hot, windy day and leave it there unincorporated or irrigated in, yep it'll be gone soon. I wait until rain is coming and then broadcast it.

    Any of you acidic soil growers want to pay me to ship the cubic yard of wood ash we generate every winter heating the house? Wish I could use it but that's about the last thing my calcareous, pH 7.2 soil needs.

  • appleseed70
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Micheal...apple trees have difficulty pulling calcium from the soil. Some varieties like Honeycrisp have required calcium foliar sprays even in areas having calcareous soils.

    I sometimes wonder though if different rootstocks may be partly to blame. I suspect (though have no evidence in support) that seedling stock would possibly reduce this requirement.

  • alan haigh
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Appleseed, I suspect you may be right, or at least old seedling apple trees that I've grafted Honeycrisp to seem to do better. But it may be partially because they are older trees. Some of the calcium deficiency issues tend to recede as trees mature I have read.

    I also think seedling trees are less susceptible to biennial bearing.

  • alan haigh
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Appleseed, I suspect you may be right, or at least old seedling apple trees that I've grafted Honeycrisp to seem to do better. But it may be partially because they are older trees. Some of the calcium deficiency issues tend to recede as trees mature I have read.

    I also think seedling trees are less susceptible to biennial bearing.

  • MrsLizzy K
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    "Some gardeners play with soil and plants partially as an escape from the modern rigors of careful calculation." You are so right harvestman!

    Also--it's not that women are squeamish about the "human" urea treatment as a fertilizer, it's that it's much easier for men to apply it ;)

  • alan haigh
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Michael, I hadn't really thought about calculating it that way, I wouldn't quite know where to begin, beyond just evaluating the vigor of the plants in the soil. I'm speaking of estimating annual N release from soil via organic matter percentage

    There must be specific research on the subject, as the amount available in the soil is an important part of the fertilization calculations in commercial agricultural production. I just got stuck on the fact that a simple acid wash soil test doesn't account for organically released N.

    Your approach to using urea duplicates mine- wait for a rain forecast or actually broadcast it during rain. Otherwise water it in. Ample spring rain is the norm here anyway and most soils around here are relatively acidic, which greatly decreases volatilization (excuse my spelling).

    I have found urea very useful for keeping peach trees in my nursery adequately vigorous, including those with seemingly adequate organic sources.

    As far as Drew's suggestion that organic sources lead to more productive soil over time- well, of course sources that add organic matter to soil will improve it while those that strip organic matter, like urea will not. But if you compensate by also adding organic matter you can get certain advantages with quick release forms.

    Both have their place- it's not necessarily one or the other.

  • drew51 SE MI Z5b/6a
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    I agree Hman both should be used at proper times. I was just listening to a garden podcast with Pam Bone a horticulture specialist. She mentioned studies of fruit trees taking up nitrogen in the late summer/fall to store in buds. The nitrogen remains there till springs. Also the Tree Tone product suggests fall fertilization of fruit trees too.
    So it makes it confusing as I've often heard to stop fertilizing by early summer.
    Something that hasn't been mentioned much is trace minerals, and so some form of organic can supply that, even mulch. In my area we are missing a few trace minerals. And I have seen deficiencies in trees. Also even farm animals showing deficiencies when no supplements are included in their diet. You need to know your area. You can mulch all you want but if your area is lacking in certain trace minerals unless you introduce them from an outside source like a complete organic fertilizer, or say azomite, you're not fixing the problem by using local organic material. Here we have very little Manganese and Selenium (almost none in local soils). Selenium requirements in plants differ by species, with some plants requiring relatively large amounts, and others apparently requiring none. So I add azomite, and other mineral products from time to time just as insurance.
    I'm trying to get away from urea and other soluble products, but so far I have not been able to, and not sure I want to. I like them a lot with seedlings as when the first true leaves appear, a quick fertilization with urea type products works well. Most soluble fertilizer are urea or ammonia. Either one does the job with seedlings. Also other applications when plants seem to need a pick up. Micro-managing growth of vegetables or other crops.soluble us useful.
    As far as efficiencies I would have to disagree with many in this thread and others. Everybody with a brain tries to make urea application efficient yet the run off into the rivers and the streams continues. So IMHO it's not working. You are wasting product even if applied in ideal conditions.

    This post was edited by Drew51 on Tue, Jan 27, 15 at 9:42

  • alan haigh
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Drew, runoff is a problem with all fertilizers. Manures need to have the soluble N digested before it is less susceptible to this than any other form of water soluble fertilizer and some of the worst pollution in this country comes from hog farms.

    However, I agree with you that urea can end up in water supplies, but that the solution is to handle it intelligently and conservatively to avoid pollution.

    I do much of my fertilization of trees I manage for other people in late summer with coated urea so it is a somewhat gradual release and won't volatize if weather isn't cooperative. This is so it will be in the buds ahead of time and primarily serve the spur leaves in early spring, as you mention.

    Commercial growers around here usually spread urea in early spring and also use a spray form for foliar feeding just as the spur leaves first appear. I don't think runoff in orchards is as much of a problem as in plowed fields. Everything is much more stable with the sod middles and most of the time properly applied urea goes where it is supposed to go in this context.

    The danger of late summer- early fall (say, after the first week of Sept) N aps stimulating cold tender growth is mostly myth IMO, but is still somewhat controversial. The fact is that mid summer drought followed by late summer rain creates a growth surge greater than some extra N applied at that time. I have never suffered consequences from late summer-early fall applications. I want it down there while there are still functioning leaves to pull it into the spur buds.

    I also like to use synthetic fertilizer on my vegie starts then switch over to organic once I move them out of the greenhouse and into the soil. I always beat my organic neighbors with early growth that vastly increases my yields- especially with pepper plants.

  • MrClint
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Post removed

    This post was edited by mrclint on Wed, Jan 28, 15 at 0:32

  • alan haigh
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Mr. Clint, based on what? That is not a proportional NPK recommended by any researched guidelines I know of as a general maintenance fertilizer. Peaches and apples feed differently, each pulling different levels of nutrient from the soil, so no single formula would even work as a ballpark maintenance formula good for all species as far as I'm concerned.

    I believe that it is an obsolete notion that ratios with high K and P to low N leads to larger flowers- you just don't want to overload plants with N- especially at the wrong time after early spring. It doesn't necessarily mean you want to load up on P and K. I bet your trees get all of that they need from the mulch you use anyway.

    I expect that formulation goes over big with the pot growers. Even 50 years ago pot growers were concerned about excessive N diminishing bud quality and size.

    With apples, straight N applied through foliar application in spring to the spur leaves makes fruit bigger in most situations (without reducing brix). It also encourages annual bearing. For cherries it must be applied in foliar form in late summer-early fall to serve the spur leaves and can make a big difference in fruit and crop size, apparently.

  • MrClint
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Post removed

    This post was edited by mrclint on Wed, Jan 28, 15 at 0:30

  • drew51 SE MI Z5b/6a
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    We all know about BYOC, seems not really relevant to the conversation. Heavily pruned trees might benefit from more nitrogen, but you are suggesting the opposite? Most experts I have heard talk on the subject do suggest more nitrogen after pruning. The plant is stimulated to grow from the pruning and is going to need food.
    Hman, yes agree with your post about runoff, some excellent points. Now what Mrclint is using that runoff is dangerous with all that phosphorus!
    On peppers, yes, exactly I discovered the same thing Hman. I just heard an expert today and he said give them that organic in the spring, and then hold back. He said bigger pods will form with less nitrogen, if overfed small pods develop. I'm going to try it and try to not hit them so much with nitrogen. Super hots are hard to start but once started seem to produce no matter what, it's the other types that later become finicky. Mrclints' suggested fertilizer may be a better option for peppers during the summer.

  • appleseed70
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    With apples, straight N applied through foliar application in spring to the spur leaves makes fruit bigger in most situations (without reducing brix).

    You've posted in the past that this was the case with fall foliar N fertilization of apples? Which is it...Spring or Fall...or both? In most cases fertilization period improves fruit size and yield and annual bearing. Everyone knows this.

  • alan haigh
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Fall and spring foliar application will serve the spur leaves of apples well,, but if you spray before you prune you will be wasting product on what is going to be removed when you prune.

    I never spray in fall and can include urea in my delayed dormant spray in early spring without much extra work, which I plan to do next year at a couple of sites- more to see if it will encourage annual cropping than anything else.

    Drew made the point about fall fertilization by broadcast to get the N into the buds early, which is something I already do regularly- with coated urea.

    Someone else on this forum brought to my attention that research has shown that cherries don't benefit from foliar sprays in spring in the same way that apples do and to feed the spurs they need that spray applied in the fall.

  • drew51 SE MI Z5b/6a
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    It makes sense about apples and cherries as cherries fruit very early, and apples late for the most part. At least late compared to cherries.