My neighbor loves miracle grow. Seems gentle enough. To be proper you really should get a soil test done to see what mix is right for your spot.

I fertilize nothing in the ground btw out of fear I will create a sixty foor tree that NEEDS yearly applications by dumo truck lol.

This time of year can you fertilize is also a question I will leave to others. I believe it is best done in spring so you do not create soft fresh growth late in the year just in time for frost damage. Not sure when the cut off is though.

Whatever you gave the lawn should be enough. Just make sure to mulch around them and water properly if you hit extended dry spell.

One of the most common myths perpetuated by fertilizer companies is that you need to fertilize to get plants to grow or you need to fertilize to get plants to bloom. It simply isn't true!! Plants will grow and bloom on their own and to their own schedule. Fertilizing to speed or hasten growth is especially ill-advised - fast growing wood is weak wood and often overly prone to insects and diseases.

As noted above, if you fertilize the lawn adjacent to these trees you may never have to apply any additional fertilizer.

Unless a soil test indicates a specific lack of nutrients - fertilizing is replacing deficient or depleted nutrient levels in the soil - there is no need to fertilize at all.

Most trees should not need fertilizer and should grow in the dirt that the root ball is placed in. With trees, shrubs, and perennials they usually spend a year or two growing roots before you see top growth.

Mulch a big area around it, water it once a week in dry spells (a good slow soaking once a week is better than frequent shallow watering), and let it alone. By year three you should see substantial growth ABOVE ground.

Don't try to get trees to grow faster than Nature intended. Give them good cultural care, and don't punish them with too much food. And remember, the fastest growing trees often have the weakest wood and the shortest lives. Patience.

If you ever give a tree supplemental feeding (which I never do), do it in the spring as the tree is coming out of dormancy. Do not do it in summer, and especially don't do it in the fall.

Many fertilizer companies do indeed over-promote their products. The counter myth that fertilizer is never needed is, however, equally misleading. Soils vary widely in their fertility and the availability of essential nutrients. Soil tests are available everywhere in the form of home test kits as well as mail in services from state agriculture departments, county extension services, etc. Indiscriminate use of products such as Miracle Gro is a poor idea, but so is allowing plants to struggle along in a miserable environment when a soil test would tell you what kind and how much fertilizer would make a real difference.

older post i see ....

all you have told us.. is that its grown to your back pocket... but not how big it started from ...

if it has doubled.. tripled.. or quadrupled.. in size... i simply ask.. WHAT MORE DO YOU WANT ...

it has only a finite root mass.. at this age...

and you are just as bound to burn it right off with excess fert.. as you are to make it grow faster ...

and again.. with its limited size... you are only going to get so much growth per season... at this time...

fertilizer is not growth hormones... and even those ... arent going to change its inherent genetic capacity for excess growth ...

ken

ps: let me also suggest.. if its grown that much.. there cant be much missing from your soil either ....

It's best if you go with organic program to improve soil biology to increase nutrient cycling (more earthworms, higher organic matter %, etc) for improved tree health and growth.

Basically, spread one inch of compost over the entire lawn to "re-introduce" microbes into the dirt if it is in poor shape then keep them happy by spreading cheap animal feed like soybean meal, alfalfa pellets, etc and they would continue to enrich the soil.

At the previous house, my rocky limestone soil got to be pretty good where it can keep St Augustine grass happy for up to 10-14 days during the summer before needing to be watered. The picture shown is behind my backyard where they were razing everything for 2nd phase of subdivision. It was pretty compacted at first. I couldn't go long before water would run off the lawn into the street. Now, I could go a long time before it runs off. Trees were thriving in the end,,,

{{gwi:87472}}

While I agree with the notion not to "force" a tree to grow faster, there is a difference, esp. under urban conditions, between "surviving" and "thriving". Many trees in urban/suburban conditions grow far slower than their species is capable of, simply due to insufficient soil, nutrients, and water.

That said, fertilizer is not necessary unless either a soil test or the appearance/condition of the tree shows a particular nutrient is actually deficient to the plants needs.

I'm with akamainegrower. The notion that all fertilizer is bad, or that anything growing at all but the slowest rate is weak wooded is just rubbish. Plenty of studies out there that wood produced in optimal conditions is just as strong as that produced in average conditions. The exceptions would be trees growing in poor light and fertilized to the absolute maximum, and even then it's more a structural problem than a wood problem. Conversely trees naturally stunted have almost nothing but dense ring structure in their wood, and the wood is very dense an yes probable stronger. But guess what, then trees are tiny and hardly "trees" at all. Another point against faster growing tree for a species is significantly weaker, then any tree growing in naturally fertile soil would be relatively very short lived, and small due to death as a result of structural failure from "weak wood". Of course that is not the case at all. The largest trees are on the best sites, directly contradicting the mantra of trees that are allowed to grow faster for their species will have weak wood. While it is true some fast growing species are prone to shorter life, it is hardly a blanket statement that stand up to examination. Tulip tree are very fast and very long lived. Dawn Redwood, extremely fast growing and very long lived, Coastal Redwoods. are fast growing and extremely long lived. Choke Cherry are fast growing and can be extremely large and moderately long lived. Native Mountain Ash is relatively slow growing and very short lived. Examples at all ends of the spectrum abound.

In the end, test your soil, address deficiencies of major and minor nutrients. But beyond that, other cultural conditions are just as important. Compacted soil, wet/dry soil, sun exposure, etc etc. And yes Lou, soil biology can be a problem as well, especially if it's stripped sub-division soil.

Arktrees

While it is true that the general soil may need improvement, you don't want to fertilize just the area by the tree itself because you want a tree to develop a very extensive root system. If you are going to improve the soil, then the whole area should be improved. Adding organic matter over time, and possibly liming (depending on location) and using a good fertilizer over the entire area, might be needed for general soil health.

But you really shouldn't fertilize a tree the way you fertilize, say, a houseplant or a bedded annual with a compact root system.

The notion that all fertilizer is bad, or that anything growing at all but the slowest rate is weak wooded is just rubbish

And I don't believe anyone said that. Almost any source you find - extension service, forestry service, ISA, other horticultural authorities - emphasize that fertilizing woody plants is not necessarily a routine and that a soil test should be done to determine need prior to applying fertilizer. That's a far cry from "all fertilizer is bad" and is the same thing stated by multiple responding posters.

And as far as growth rate was concerned, fertilizers or the lack thereof, are only one of many reasons why a tree may not be growing up to its genetically programmed rate. Unless these are all addressed and eliminated, fertilizing (when it is not the underlying reason) may very well be more of a stressor than a help and create far more problems than it is intended to solve. And attempting to use fertilizer to accelerate growth in excess of a "normal" growth rate is just asking for trouble.

There are just too many unknowns at this stage to advise anyone desiring a 'growth spurt' on a very young tree to fertilize to create such activity. And now is hardly the time to be doing so anyway.

"Fertilizing to speed or hasten growth is especially ill-advised - fast growing wood is weak wood and often overly prone to insects and diseases."

Sounds like no fertilizer to me, or you will get weak wood.

Oh, and read the rest of my post about soil test, optimal conditions, compaction, etc.

Arktrees

Your experience with growth rate is one of my frustrations with some of those on this forum. It seems like their solution to any tree problem regardless of the size of the tree is to cut it down. That may be practical and not cause much harm for trees that are less that a dozen years old. For old mature trees that are providing nice shade for you yard, cutting the tree down should be the last resort.

If you cut an old mature tree down and replace it with a nursery sapling you will never see the tree reach the size of the one you cut. For most trees to go from a sapling to a shade asset for your yard will take over 20 years. The house will probably have 3 or 4 other owners in that time.

It will be 10 to 15 years before your tree provides enough shade to protect you and your lawn chair. Do you like sitting in the lawn chair in the sun by the replacement sapling for the mature tree that you cut down.

knuttle, I was told by two posters to cut down a young tree with multiple leaders. I got a certified arborist in who says I got it nice and early for directional pruning and that there would be no problems; it should mature just fine and the pruning job is only $75.

I was frankly stunned by the advice to cut it down. It's been in the ground 4 or 5 years and is just now getting to the point that it is starting to give a small shadow that follows it around during the day. If I cut it down and start over... well, I'm not old, but I'm not that young either and as it is I'll be well into my fifth decade before this tree reaches any size. If I start over, I'm looking at retirement before the tree resembles a "shade tree."

This is a good reminder that trees take forever to grow, and very few trees are perfect. You are right that cutting down a tree is frequently unnecessary and really overdramatic.