Right, more horizontal branches fruit much better. Many pruning/training systems aim to take advantage of that fact. If your tree is producing too much wood and too little fruit, bend and tie down some limbs.

Scott

Scott I think you helped me out once by mentioning that for some green gage plums growing vertically that were not producing. I weighted those lower green gage branches down to make them horizontal and the same year for the first time the tree started producing. I'm considering intentionally bending a new row of apples slightly like I did the reliance peach. How much heavier production do you typically get? I'm seeing 3 times the yield on the reliance peaches but that is hard to believe.

I would chalk it up to "unexplained phenomena". Peaches bear more fruit than they can handle and require a great deal of thinning as a general rule. More vertical branches on a peach are only a problem if too much shade on the bearing wood is the consequence or if a weak union is created.

Obviously, the more spread out the tree the more light will be harvested and the more fruit it will produce, but peach branches don't need to be spread to encourage fruiting the way apples, pears and E. plums do.

I just ordered a few Summerfest peaches which is a variety selected for it's more upright growth habit so growers could more easily manage them at a closer spacing. If the habit delayed fruiting it would negate the whole point of its growth habit.

As usual the H man has it right, peaches set too much no matter which way shoots are headed. And they do it every yr it doesn't freeze. No biennial bearing, no bad habits, other than blooming before a freeze.

Good information to know. It puts me back to square one on the peach producing more peaches. I do have another theory which is that as mentioned it grows outside a garden and I've tilled a foot of old manure in the garden which could explain it's productiveness. Perhaps it has extra roots in the good soil.

Arhh... but rich soil tends to encourage more leaf growth, not more fruit. I think. So back again to square one with you, ClarkinKS

I have also heard that horizontal branches bear more fruit. It's a mystery.

My garden is not rich in Nitrogen but rather rich in PK. I use aged manure and compost. The original soil is clay- loam which is rich in macro and micro nutrients. The glaziers came through this area as well. That combo causes lots of blooms and later fruit.

If there is a particular nutrient your peach trees need that is deficient in your native soil, such as K, then the advantage could well be access to the composted manure. Peaches use lots of K.

Test the two soil types if you are really curious.

Clark,

I know a guy who lives close to me who had a peach tree, which incredibly took longer than a decade to start producing peaches.

He abused the tree going in. Evidently he received the tree when they were back filling dirt around his new home (at the time). He let the tree soak in a bucket of water for 7 days, while he waited for the dirt work to be completed. The tree survived that abuse only to be planted in pure clay. It was planted on a large rise, so at least there was some drainage.

Anyway the guy claimed it didn't produce a peach for something like 17 years. He finally started using a "root feeder" which included phosphorous in the mix, and the tree started producing.

I'm not advocating a root feeder, just pointing out in some circumstances peaches can take longer than normal to start production, even when they are in clay.

Incidentally, clay in this part of the state is naturally low in phos. Phos is required for flower bud development.

The clay based soil here at the house was "extremely low" according to the original soil test done years ago (5ppm). I originally fertilized w/ diammonium phosphate (DAP) and have used lots of wood chip mulch through the years so the phos level is w/in an acceptable range now (29ppm). The leaf analysis from last summer also shows sufficient levels in leaf tissue.

Earlier this year I did the first soil test at the farm. Again it was low in P (10ppm). I also had to fertilize that ground w/ DAP to get the phos. up.

I'm not sure how deficient phos has to be to start seeing symptoms in leaves.

Phos by nature is not very mobile in soil, but DAP is the most mobile form of phos. fertilizer. For the most part, once you get the phos at acceptable levels, it will stay put. Peach trees don't use much phos but they need sufficient levels in the soil.

K has always been present at higher levels naturally around here, but I don't know what it would be like in your part of the state. As you know, soil makeup is considerably different as you move to the western part of the state. Soils in the western part are very alkaline. I'm in the extreme east part of the state.

Olpea, I am under the impression that P deficiency is extremely rare, although I often see university specs that call for adding it to the soil, so maybe that shows that deficiency can be a problem in commercial fruit production. I do know that our CPS outlets do not include P in it's standard peach fertilizer mixes which contain K and N in equal amounts and maybe a bit of boron.

I always thought the need for added soluble P in agriculture was primarily to get plants started before the mychorizal relationships kick in and create adequate P for trees even when it is scarce in the soil.

Maybe in Kansas the prairie lacks the right fungus to support trees. Seems like I remember these fungus being species specific to the point of herbacious perennials being served by different species than woodies.

Here's what I found so you can see what a P deficient peach looks like.

Here is a link that might be useful: P deficiency in peaches

Harvestman:

Thanks for that link. I'm familiar with nitrogen and zinc deficiency on my trees here in SW Texas. Both are easily recognized once seen.

For nitrogen I fertilize only when the leaf color changes to a lighter shade of green.

Zinc shows up in spring as small leaves and stunted growth of new shoots.

I'm wondering if what I've looked on as possible virus infection isn't a nutrient deficiency possibly Manganese or a combination of things.

Hman,

Really, I'm am just basing my info on the information put out by my soil lab. Soil science is an old science, old enough to be tested or refuted via scientific method, so I assume the info. is valid. The lab I use is accredited 50 ways sideways.

In my opinion, there is a bias on this forum against nutrition for fruit trees. In this case, I choose to believe university based lab info. vs. what I would consider various spurious anecdotal info on the Web (I hope that doesn't sound too harsh, as I sincerely believe much of the anecdotal advice on this forum is quite sound, I just think there is too much bias against fruit tree nutrition on the forum.)

I understand university trials are skewed more toward production and less toward fruit quality, but I think in this case P is not related to quality, and therefore would remove it from the equation of fruit quality.

I have no comment that U.C. Davis has rarely seen P deficiency in CA, I only know the lab I've done business with for quite a few years in the Midwest indicated my soil was extremely low in P years ago. This was again confirmed when I purchased the farm ground 7 miles away.

The lab recommended I add almost 200 lbs./ac of DAP at the farm, which is a considerable amount. They originally recommended more than that at the house (P values were lower at the house).

Had I not added the P, would the peaches have produced as early? I don't know. I just know the effect of nutrients on plants is a fairly established science, so I followed their recommendations and reaped early yields of high quality fruits.

I've had numerous customers lament they can't grow peaches, plums, etc in my area. I wish I had a dollar for every customer who plied me with questions of why their peach trees failed. Of course they don't do any management, so it's difficult to tell if their failure is due to lack of management in fertilization, or other areas. IMO, it's probably a combination lack of management in several areas.

Olpea, the main point here seems to be that in order for P to be low enough to reduce harvest it should also be low enough to show symptoms on the leaves, and even then probably wouldn't affect the fruiting much, just the quality of the fruit. They show a photo of a tree suffering extreme P deficiency that is loaded with fruit. They had to grow the tree in sand to create that level of deficiency.

I would tend to trust UC Davis on the subject of nutrient deficiency in peaches. They do produce a few peaches in that state and do a lot of research on the subject in general.

As far as this forum having a negative perspective on nutrient management of orchards and using fertilizer, I don't really see that. If a tree shows symptoms then you need to either respond with the most likely treatment or do some leaf and soil analysis to try to determine a treatment more precisely.

The thing is that in common soils nutrient deficiencies in fruit trees is not all that common, at least to the point of seriously decreasing the size or quality of the harvest. After cropping from a soil for a very long time it is more likely to become a problem, which is more the case in commercial production than home orchards.

Boron seems to be the most likely nutrient to diminish or eliminate the harvest without showing symptoms on the rest of the tree. I was mistaken to suggest K, I think.

Here is a link that might be useful: Boron deficiency in peaches

" I am under the impression that P deficiency is extremely rare" - Harvestman

Actually, unfertilized soil 12" down in open grassy areas here is usually trace in nitrogen and phosphorus. Potassium is always extremely high. It could be that the steep slopes don't allow nutrient buildup. I think the potassium will always be high from the clay.

Olpea:

"too much bias against fruit tree nutrition"

That begs for some clarification but assume you are taking about nitrogen and probably my "bias" against "excessive" levels.

You know as well as anyone that there's an optimum range for every nutrient and it's not at the extreme highest or lowest level. If I have a bias it's against overly vigorous trees. I feel that's justified if we are talking about eating quality.

But why say we're biased against fruit tree nutrition. I can only guess at what that means.

NYRF, I was not talking about low readings in the soil but actual deficiencies in trees. Because of mychorizal associations trees generally get the P they actually need even in deficient soils.

I believe recommendations about P requirements are based on obsolete ideas that were derived from experiments in sterile soils- also that soil laboratories in the Midwest might be more knowledgeable about corn and soybeans than fruit trees.

I have read that annuals often suffer from P deficiency early in the season when soils are cool before they hook up with mychorizal fungi. For them, ample free P in the soil can be important.

Hman,

The real question to me is whether leaves will show symptoms before fruit buds are formed.

I gave an extreme example of mis-management, but I've come across many examples where people are waiting for fruit beyond what would be expected. Personally, I think it is too common to be classified as unexplained phenomena. I suspect fruit bud formation in many cases is the first to suffer from nutrition.

Notwithstanding your example above, I've come across many examples where tree foliage seemed to look healthy but no fruit was forthcoming. I've rarely seen this when trees are growing vigorously in my own orchard where fertility levels are known.

I rely on a lab out of Michigan (i.e. the fruit belt of the Midwest) so I don't think they are overly swayed by the corn/soy mentality.

Fruitnut,

My comments were not directed at you, or any one poster.

I agree there is an optimum range of nutrients. It's just that I rarely see that discussed. More often I see dire warnings against over fertility, leaving newbies w/ the impression it's best to err on the side of doing nothing (or little) for fertility.

Again I agree the optimum is best, but as one who has witnessed excessive vigor, the only drawback I've seen is increased pruning costs (I am very cognizant shade reduces fruit quality, so I prune to keep the canopy open.) On the plus side, I've had 2nd year peach trees (started out as whips) produce 75+ peaches.

Not to sound conceited , but I don't hear other accounts of this. Mostly I hear comments of the opposite (i.e. why won't my tree produce fruit).

My experience is that trees that size quickly bear fruit. I just rarely (if never) hear advice on this forum about pushing trees (via fertility) to get them to bear. More often I hear the concern about vigor producing less fruit, or potentially lower quality fruit.

This is my take of the pulse of the forum over the years. Nothing scientific, just a feel of the general comments.

I'm going to have fruit next yr on almost every tree planted this spring in my greenhouse. Will even have a little, I think, on June budded trees. Very little nitrogen added and many that will bear were notably lighter green indicating nitrogen deficiency. If they are light green next spring they'll get a small dose of nitrogen. That's all my trees need to produce peach and nectarines usually 3-4 inches and high brix.

My outdoor trees usually produce smaller fruit but also higher brix. However production is so sporatic due to freezes that I may be all wet.

"I'm going to have fruit next yr on almost every tree planted this spring in my greenhouse. Will even have a little, I think, on June budded trees."

I would assume your potting mix has nutrients critical for precocity (Congrats BTW. I know you put in a lot of new trees last spring and had some challenging moments w/ spring freezes.)

What specific nutrients are essential for early fruiting, I'm not certain. It just seems to me the best explanation for lack of early fruiting (IMO) in many cases.

Hman may be correct, that P has nothing to do w/ early fruiting. It's just that even university publications rarely discuss delayed fruiting as it relates to nutrition. The information seems to relate more toward symptoms in mature orchards, mostly how to observe symptoms visually in the foliage.

Even in the link below where they discuss fertility in peaches at some length, they don't once discuss it from the perspective of precocity. It's interesting they also mention P deficiency is rare in P. And that peaches show little response to P. Yet they recommend it at pre-planting in accordance with soil testing. They also recommend 15-20 lbs. per year to maintain P levels.

One would assume the researchers are smart enough not to contradict themselves, so there must be other details as to why P needs to be at certain levels. One can only speculate on what those details may be. My speculation was that it may affect precocity. This is based on soils and early fruiting responses in my area. That, and reading P is essential in flower formation with annuals and fruit trees. (One could speculate they recommend P to maximize production, but they don't say that either. Again, they say peaches show little response to P.)

Phosphorous aside, the over-riding point to me is that fertility (or lack thereof) is the best explanation for many (if not most) delayed fruiting problems, and probably the best explanation for Clark's observations above.

Here is a link that might be useful: University of Georgia-Peach Nutrition

I don't really like the U of G guidelines. There seems little emphasis on soil and leaf analysis and they suggest routinely using a 10-10-10 mixture for young trees and later discuss the issue of excess P as a frequent problem while stating deficiencies are rare.

Nothing is said about the difficulty of using P because it quickly binds to other minerals and becomes unavailable. It simply doesn't strike me as a very thoughtful guideline for commercial growing.

It is strange about the high concern of urea toxicity, which is something I've never heard of as a commercial tree fruit issue. Is that more of a problem down south?

"NYRF, I was not talking about low readings in the soil but actual deficiencies in trees. - Harvestman

Okay, that makes a little more sense. I guess I wasn't following very well.

"I don't really like the U of G guidelines. There seems little emphasis on soil and leaf analysis and they suggest routinely using a 10-10-10 mixture for young trees..."

As you point out, that rec was only for non-bearing trees, which is only two applications. The amount of extra P added from the two applications (1/10th of a pound of phosphate per tree X 2) would not radically affect the overall level of phosphate in the soil. Probably by the time that phosphate reaches the root zone, the trees will have started fruiting and have utilized that much P from crop removal. They do recommend soil and leaf analysis in a fertility program for bearing trees.

Their P guidelines for pre-plant are fairly common. Below is a table from Ontario which again suggests adding P to soil before planting if it's low. As you know Ontario also grows quite a few peaches.

I realize these guidelines are in opposition to U.C. Davis, which state "We have never been able to show any benefit from adding P containing fertilizers to mature orchards or newly planted trees." But I think Davis guidelines are intended to be specific to CA growers. Perhaps CA has ample P in their soils, so it's never needed. I don't know.

Here is a link that might be useful: Ontario Pre-Plant Fertilizer Recs.

So far I'd have to agree with Olpea's arguments in this discussion, but I've yet to hear anyone mention the importance that the proper PH plays in all of this. Without
the proper ph, none of these nutrients, no matter what they are, are going to be absorbed by the plant. That's why regular soil testing and regular ph adjustment is more crucial than anything, no matter what you're growing.
Getting back to the original theme of this thread, bending branches does not produce more fruit, but in some cases can encouraging earlier fruiting in younger trees. I think we can all agree on that.

"Getting back to the original theme of this thread, bending branches does not produce more fruit, but in some cases can encouraging earlier fruiting in younger trees. I think we can all agree on that."

I agree Rayrose, and do quite a bit of that myself.

I just think fertility is very important to precocity. I have little other explanation for it in my own orchard. Granted there are other factors, such as branch bending and some anomalies such as Fruitnut describes in his greenhouse (I consider his experience somewhat of an anomaly, not to discount it, but to recognize his very high level of management probably accounts for the extremely early precocity he sees. I've read his posts where he is very picky about his soil mix. I think he also likes to use K1 on peaches which may further increase precocity, but of course he can comment on that. Quite frankly, I have little experience with potted culture.)

I do know, and it is well recognized, fruit trees go through a juvenile phase before they start production. From my experience the faster they move through that phase, the faster they start producing (Of course dwarf rootstocks trump this.) Dwarf stocks aside, this is largely related to nutrition. Beyond that I think there are other nutrients which may delay fruiting in and of themselves, but that's just my own thoughts.

Thanks for your comment.

Olpea, I think no place has consistent amounts of particular nutrients- at least a state as large as CA.

My point was not so much their specific recommendations as their lack of stating the importance of soil and tissue analysis. It just doesn't seem to me to be an up to date approach in commercial production to blindly apply 10-10-10 without reference to soil analysis. P is a pollution hazard and shouldn't be applied if it isn't needed.

See if you can find any information about P that is actually based on research in the field where a lack of it has caused production problems. Check into Australian fruit production because, as I recall, their soil is ancient and very low in P.

Your orchard is probably productive early because your trees are quite vigorous. Healthy peach trees seem always to set an abundance of fruit if the buds aren't frozen off. Commercial growers expect a good crop by third leaf- and they don't have the benefit of all those wood chips.

I do not manage a single orchard where aggressive thinning of peaches isn't consistently needed and I never add any P at installation or after.

Hman,

Here in SC, Clemson recommends I cup of 10-10-10 in march per year of tree age to a maximum of 10 cups for mature trees. I would not call this a blind application. It's what's recommended. Granted, that might not be what's recommended in other areas, but it is here. I think you're placing too much emphasis on P.

I want my young tree well fed. I didn't do a good job this year and noticed of all things a manganese deficiency. At least that is what it looks like. It looks like they used my leaves in the photos. I will do a soil test in the spring, but will in the meantime treat for this deficiency. PH is good. My local soil must lack this trace mineral. I'll soon find out.

I'm just continuing a discussion out of general interest on a rather minor point. I happen to think that recommendations of adding P are outdated and unnecessary unless a simple soil test shows a major deficiency. I've always been one to question authority, although it may sometimes be a mistake.

If P is often an important deficiency there should be ample evidence of it in the literature as is the case with N.

Pertaining to the original question of the poster, I don't believe P has anything to do with his lack of peach production, although Boron could conceivably be involved, based on what I've read since this discussion started.

In parts of the country, including NY, P is being removed from lawn fertilizers because it isn't necessary and does have an environmental down side.

"See if you can find any information about P that is actually based on research in the field where a lack of it has caused production problems. Check into Australian fruit production because, as I recall, their soil is ancient and very low in P."

I Googled for a little bit and really didn't come up w/ much scientific info. (At least they didn't explain any science behind it.)

I quickly came across a few examples like this:
http://archive.agric.wa.gov.au/objtwr/imported_assets/content/pw/gard/nutritional_gn_formatted.pdf

where they have a quick blurb about P, where they say, "Phosphorus is essential for the development of flowers, fruit and roots....In fruit trees, flowering and fruiting may be affected. Deficiency symptoms are more prevalent during cold, wet conditions. To correct the deficiency apply solid or liquid phosphate fertilisers."

Ive read lots of stuff like this in the past, but I know you are looking for something more substantial.

In Prof. D. Layne's book "The Peach, Botany Production and Uses", he mentions that P is rare in peaches and that generally there is no response to adding it. Interestingly he does say that P deficiency can occur, causing reduced growth, without any visual symptoms in the foliage.

I'd post the link to the book, but since it's a copyrighted book, the link may not pull up the same pages I was reading. Google books does that sometimes.

I know you are somewhat annoyed that commercial guidelines could recommend adding P w/o a soil test, but again it's only for the first two years, it's a small amount, and in a commercial orchard, where that amount of P would probably be used up by the time it got down to the root zone.

The U.C. Davis link you posted above get their info. from their nutrition manual (linked at the bottom of their page). The authors of it even state, " In fact, annual requirements of fruit trees in general range from 5 to 10 lb/acre (6 to 11 kg/ha), which is much lower than for many field crops." Although they don't specifically state a maintenance program for P is required, they do imply it. Of course they don't recommend application of nutrients w/o testing, but U of GA only mentioned it for the first two years, which isn't a big issue to me.

I've always read that P is very stable and immobile in soil, so I think the risk of pollution from a couple very light applications of P is very minimal. It seems most pollution from P comes from sewage treatment and feed lots. The link from the U.C. Davis nutrition manual says,"However, there is minimal leaching loss of phosphorus from the soil because it exists predominately in these insoluble forms."

To me the danger of too much P is the reduced uptake of Zn, which is pretty important to peach trees. But there is little risk of too much P in this area, unless someone was careless w/ applying it.

You may be right, that P doesn't matter for fruit trees, but there seems to enough university publications recommending a minimum level for it, that I think it warrants addressing in soils low in P, such as in this locale. Although I agree, there does seem to be a degree of conflicting advice about it.

I think Rayrose has a very good point that Ph is just as important as the actual level of P in the soil, in terms of root uptake.

I also agree that too much emphasis should not be placed on any one nutrient. I hope I haven't left the impression that P is the only nutrient that matters, or even the main nutrient. I just originally addressed Clark's situation based on my own soils, which showed P the most deficient of all nutrients. But I tried to qualify that by recognizing soils my be different in his part of the state.

I actually found this statement from UC Davis.

"As far as we know, there has never been a documented case of phosphorous deficiency in California in fruit or nut trees.

There is apparently enough phosphorous in the soil and it is readily available to the trees. In some cases where there
has been land excavation or very poor soils an application of phosphorous tilled into the soil pre-plant might be necessary. It could also be applied in a complete fertilizer on a regular basis. In most cases, however, it is a waste of money and resource".

I actually believe it is often recommended because it is important for annual crops when they are first rooting out in the spring and the advice is simply spill over, but who knows?

I don't understand why a commercial grower would bother applying it at all without at least taking a soil test to see if it's deficient in the soil.

It is a hazard in terms of pollution and well known to be so even though it tends to bind to other minerals and become unavailable. Apparently the problem lies in when downpours occur after a surface application and it is whisked into the waterways before it binds.

"I actually found this statement from UC Davis.

'As far as we know, there has never been a documented case of phosphorous deficiency in California in fruit or nut trees...'"

I hope I haven't beat this horse too much, but I found one other bit of info. interesting to me.

The link below is a study on the change in CA soils over the last 60 years. I'm not that familiar with CA, but the researchers appeared to test soils in the major agricultural areas of CA, including areas where tree fruit and grapes are grown.

According to their data, P levels in 1945 were 71.8ppm. They were 84.6ppm in 2001.

From the paper, "The statewide plant-available phosphorus average of 71.8 ppm in 1945 increased to 84.6 ppm in 2001. When geographical regions were considered, the lower San Joaquin Valley had significant increases in plant-available phosphorus, as did Southern California and Wine Country. The upper San Joaquin Valley, Northern California and Gold Country did not have significant changes in plant-available phosphorus. When land use is considered, significant increases in plant-available phosphorus levels were found in tree crops, row crops and viticulture."

They go on to attribute the increase due to fertilizer application.

However, the most relevant part to me is the level of P in their soil. Even in 1945 it was 71.8ppm. This is a high level by anyone's standards, and may explain why they have a different perspective than some other sources. This probably also explains why they've never seen a documented case of P deficiency in CA.

My soil at the house started out at 5ppm (10ppm at the farm). Even after a corrective application of synthetic P and years of wood chips, the current level of P at the house is 29ppm, still not approaching levels of what appears to occur naturally in CA.

Here is a link that might be useful: Looking back 60 years, California soils maintain overall quality

This post was edited by olpea on Thu, Nov 20, 14 at 8:38

Here we are very familiar with too much P. We have had algal blooms in Lake Erie. Just had another one this year. First time in a long time. Lake Erie almost became a swamp. Now it is teeming with walleye and bass. Part of the problem we have in Michigan is as the population grows to the north, the small town sewer systems are not capable of handling the increased sewage. So when heavy rains occur the sewers are dumped into the great lakes. A problem we have had for the last 20 years. The P problem was solved with the change in detergents, and fertilizers.
Although last year reminds us we have to do more.
I have seen it become more natural around here as time passes. Animals are returning and such. last winter I saw a bald eagle around here. never saw one here ever. Amazing! I hope they like squirrels!

But in the entire state of CA I'm pretty sure there are going to be quite a bit of potential orchard land where P is low, if only because of certain types of land use whatever the average..

Here in NY soils P is also relatively high, generally speaking- one of the highest averages in the country and yet about a third of the soil tests I take have a very low reading of it.

I think it's taken a long time for the agricultural gurus to come to terms with the fairly recent understanding about mychorizal relationships.

In the spring I will run a soil test and perhaps that will solve the mystery. Thanks for the information. I do always add a couple of inches of wood chips around the base of my fruit trees. It's possible those wood chips may have an affect on the peach trees.