fert for trees not recomended

AHHH...fert.....I've been argueing this topic on another forum(HO's mostly)and they keep telling me "but my county arborist says".......blah blah blah.

In medicine, "prescription without diagnosis is malpractice".

I live by this theory. If you cannot prove defficiency then you shouldn't fertilize. Simply try to provide the most natural soil environment as possible and let the system that has kept trees alive and healthy for millenia do what it does. Trees did just fine before we started meddling in their affairs. When you put a living thing in an unnatural environment it may not do well, but "feeding" it an unnatural substance isn't probably the solution to its problem either. This is why the average lifespan of an urban tree is less than ten years. Fertilizing isn't going to change that statistic. Naturalizing might...IMO.
 
[ QUOTE ]
I just spent the last 9 years working for a company
where soil testing to determine the exact defiencies was standard operating procedure. The fertilizer was then custom
made to correct the specific deficiency.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wish every company did that. Good on you for doing things right!

I wasn't trying to generalize... well, OK, yes I was. Fertilizers (along with pesticides, fungistats, hormone regulators, etc.) are certainly useful and perhaps even appropriate in some cases. However, I will always prefer and promote a biological/natural course of action.
 
That's cool; have a good day !!!
icon14.gif
jamminz.gif
 
The jest of it all is that seasonal treatments with restorative or natural ammendments pre-empts the need for invasive and short-termed blasts for destructive invasions and chronic responses to dying soils.

As an economic issue, the list of clients to your business are much more in tune with preventive programs, once-a-year visits to insure the long-term health of the trees. With the correct componants that enhance or maintain a healthy rhizosphere, the trees are less likely to fall victim to the current and growing threats we're all witnessing.

Many of my customers are in need of fixing the damage that can be documented as related to widespread use of chemical ferts, many fungal and insect problems enhanced by advocated input of N, P, and K..."Weed&Feed" especially.

A Chemlawn lawn is addicted to the contractual 2X or 3X treatment...it's necessary to repeat the applications or the lawn will die. Brilliant business method but in many ways - a scam. No root structures, no fixation of nitrogen from the air, the soil or the plants. Dependency and highly susceptable to pests...hence the return spraying with heavier and heavier dosages of additives, more need to maintain the artificial cycle. Trees are the same: NPK..instant deep greening, lusher foliage, faster growth. Then depletion, chlorosis, impaired immune response to disease and no learned genetic programming to stimulate further root growth and development. An addict going cold turkey, a viral disease there's no acquired immunity for and a living environment that's more detrimental to balance and symbiosis than if we'd just left it all alone.

A spray rig that sits around too much, there are two schools of thought to use it with. One is for the quick bucks and ultimately the tree's demise. The other is for a program that includes keeping the tree as healthy as we can for the long term.
I guess then there's two types of customers - one is a relationship with their arborist that means something and is committed, the other would be akin to a broker that just wants the trees to look good enough to sell the place, whatever happens next year doesn't matter.

I like to think that a healthy business is one where long-term relationships are made, not fast-food quarter pounders that eventually kill the consumer but notbefore they've sired a few dozen kids, and we can addict them too.
 
Cornell University Cooperative Extension offers a guide for planting and maintaining trees and shrubs. This is their culmination of research/findings. Info bulletin 24.

They say test soil before fertilizing. Fert is no substitute for wrong tree wrong place. They also push slow release organic ferts applied as mulch.

Pretty much agrees with what was said here by others regarding this topic.
 
[ QUOTE ]


They say test soil before fertilizing. Fert is no substitute for wrong tree wrong place.


[/ QUOTE ]

Just as com. ferts. are no substitute for misplaced exotics, neither are pesticides...."I found a heavily infested pin oak at a residence in western Iowa. The property was surrounded by native woodland and the yard contained other oaks, but the caterpillars were not feeding on these oaks or on the native trees bordering the property. Pin oaks are not native to this area and poorly adapted to the native soils...."(From The Nature of Tree Care, Shigo and Phillips).

Just as in pesticides, fertilizer habits, decades old die hard.

"Insects that feed on trees favor those that are stressed. Stress lowers energy reserves needed for defense. Many defoliating insects are sensitive to signals produced by stressed trees, and the leaves are more palatable because they are low in defensive chemicals. The production of these natural toxins requires sufficient energy reserves. Many trees, including oaks, respond to defoliation by concentrating even more of those toxins in their leaves the following season, if enough energy is available." (same book referenced above)

So like the contrived introduction of commercial fertilizers, the use of insecticides can make a tree more vulnerable to future infestations/infections. Do you agree?

Other negatives occur in addition to inhibiting natural toxin formation; natural predators are killed and also usually the target pest weaklings are killed first leaving the genetically strong to reproduce. This is why often, and I have seen this myself with Gypsy moth, a chem. pesticide may work one year and the next year have little or no effect.

I know this going off on a tangent, however we are trying to correct decades old practices (arbs used to fertilize everything for any and no reason) and this another one. Arborists used to go out every day of the spring into late fall and spray (general cover sprays). Do you see any of this anymore.

Sometimes I wonder what gives us a right to decide just how much canopy a tree should be allowed to carry (pruning) when they are constantly theoretically working this out on their own through dynamic equilibrium.
 
30 years here of trying to wean people away from the midset and economy of agribiz marketing. In many ways the disease epidemics we're witnessing are a good thing...it takes notice and from there questions come. Most of the answers implicate habits of the past, and current times indicate they were quick-solve without oversight or forethought other than fiscal generators and short-term profits.

If I see a chem application on trees, I find out what and who. Then FIFRA, the Federal Act is a good tool to solve things acute. Most often than not, illegal recommendations come from the very agencies (fed, state and local) charged with education of the public towards infestations, die-backs, and illnesses. All an extension service is good for around here...is primary identifications of the problems. Say thanks and goodbye to them for that.
 
I had someone tell me that we arborists were always thinking so long term, years not days,all that. I couldn't tell if it was a compliment. Ferts - or let's call them soil amendments or soil applications? - have their place. Just not in all cases. I think it's good to talk more about soil health,root health, live dirt. Mild fert has a place in that discussion, for sure. In our area, the natural phosporhus content is through the roof, so "P" is really never called for in soil applications. Soil tests aren't that expensive; I'm pitching them more and more and clients dig it.
wink.gif
tongue.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]



Sometimes I wonder what gives us a right to decide just how much canopy a tree should be allowed to carry (pruning) when they are constantly theoretically working this out on their own through dynamic equilibrium.

[/ QUOTE ]

I love these comments - just a thought about this one, though...I thought that most forest trees evolved in more competetive environemnts (i.e., forests) and that pruning was one way to address trees' rapid growth response when placed in an area with more sun...

It goes back to the old argument that pruning is for people, not really trees.

I think that a tree will always successfully figure out the best amount of canopy to produce for the purpose of producing as many viable fruits in its lifetime , but not necessarily for the purpose of having a healthy strong canopy for as long as possible.

Remember as arborists we appreciate trees for everything beautiful about them but they have their own lives to live and it's not so much about being a pretty tree as being a tree that produces tons of viable seeds for as many years as possible. That's what its genes are trying to make it do!!
 
Sorry, that was off topic....we're supposed to be talking about ferts...my own take is that with certain soils that are obviously lacking a natural decomposing layer a little mycorrizae fert is pretty good if done along side the mulching (and vert mulching...) that the trees really need to ever have a chance at 50+ years.

I have a habit of going off on tangents....
 
Not off topic, not at all.

Natural management techniques are also coming into question. There are distinct changes occuring, what's worked inthe past doesn't always anymore.

Deficiencies are widespread, triggered by rapid changes in what's been long-term expectations to the past few years of chemical changes in rainfall, UV radiation changes, particulates, viral, bacterial and insect opportunities and soils most imp-ortantly. Boron and Zinc inputs are as important as restoration of pseudomonas and other symbiotic flora. What were native and established specimens are more apt to exist successfully elsewhere, deserts made from lush green valleys and lakes/streams eutrophysizing and groundwater changes.

We're advocating the planting of weed trees, more successful than native stock in our areas. We're using base-line soil measurement data taken fifty years ago to get things healthy again, more opportunistic disease resistant. Long-term thinking is necessary for even short-term solutions.
 
If you will all turn to page 19 in your "collection of CEUs" manual titled "Plant Health Care", there is an article on resource allocation which will explain in some detail why you should NOT fertilize. One of the main reasons being that fertilization can increase your trees susceptibility to attack by insects and disease and lower srought stress tolerance. Trees only have a limited amount of energy to spread around for growth, defense, reproduction, storage and maintenance. Fertilizing trees causes them to burn up stored energy on growth, leaving a deficit for defense and the other needed areas.
 
I'm working on a mulching study right now and reading up on the benefits of mulch and watering and how trees are stressed due to grass competition (mostly after transplant). When I get to work tomorrow I'll post the articles.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom