Tree Arbor Green Fertilizer

ronnyb · 25th January 2008, 05:30 PM

I was a foreman with Davey for a while in the residential department. One of the few companies that took training seriously. No progression meant no promotion or pay raise. The division manager was something else though. He was promoted through the ranks, and wouldn't fire his friend (lawn guy) when he was caught stealing for the Nth time. They also really oversell the fertilization. High nitrogen fertilizer (30%) really fuc*s the trees up when applied year after year, but hey, it's big money so keep pumping it in the ground.

Ekka · 25th January 2008, 10:54 PM

What happens to high N fertilized trees over time, got pics?

ronnyb · 26th January 2008, 08:01 AM

They are insect magnets. Heavy feeding resulting in dieback. They end up looking terrible. Sorry, no pics. Our digital camera drains the batteries in 5-6 pictures. My wife and I can't agree on a replacement either.

dannyboysfc · 26th January 2008, 03:58 PM

Davey: Davey Arbor Green? <i>PRO</i>

The link is to what Davey has to say about it.

My experience tells me that overall in urban areas fertilization is a huge improvement. Certian trees though(specifically magnolias and tulip tree) when already infested with aphids or scale, seem to do worse than if not fertilized. I cant prove this scientifically, just observation from personal experience.

Also, I have accidentally hugely overdosed a tree with the stuff and it did no apparent dammage at all.

Ekka · 26th January 2008, 04:40 PM

Well, I read everything.

30-10-7 is pretty darned aggressive especially when injected into the soil profile, I wouldn't advise it here and it might even burn a few natives.

I cannot see how the soil itself is improved? I cannot see if there's any organic matter going in there. As far as plants building up defences I'd debate that point till no tomorrow.

Trees will sacrifice defence over growth every time, more nutrient availability means more growth, could also lead to over extended and more likely to fail trees ... could grow till they break.

It's one thing to pitch an angle that suggests the fertilizer replaces what's natural in a forest, that's some tricky snake oil there. Been to a forest? Oh, there's mulch not lawn, there's diversity, there's grafting and shelter with fauna (critters) all working together. So now we chemically duplicate the forests soil nutrient content, forget all the other things that go on in a forest and give it to our urban trees. Interesting, I'd like to see the long term repercussions of this and I certainly wouldn't trust any of the manufacturers data on it.

These ain't veggie crops or beans, we're talking trees here, that can fail and kill you. Trees that get cut, weed whacked, compacted etc and defence is a critical component, so is trying to create some natural sustenance such as mulch, water, decompaction, beneficial microrhizae etc.

Sorry mate, I aint sold, the warning bells are going off. Dont like the one size fits all approach either.

dannyboysfc · 26th January 2008, 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ekka

Well, I read everything.

30-10-7 is pretty darned aggressive especially when injected into the soil profile, I wouldn't advise it here and it might even burn a few natives.

I cannot see how the soil itself is improved? I cannot see if there's any organic matter going in there. As far as plants building up defences I'd debate that point till no tomorrow.

Trees will sacrifice defence over growth every time, more nutrient availability means more growth, could also lead to over extended and more likely to fail trees ... could grow till they break.

It's one thing to pitch an angle that suggests the fertilizer replaces what's natural in a forest, that's some tricky snake oil there. Been to a forest? Oh, there's mulch not lawn, there's diversity, there's grafting and shelter with fauna (critters) all working together. So now we chemically duplicate the forests soil nutrient content, forget all the other things that go on in a forest and give it to our urban trees. Interesting, I'd like to see the long term repercussions of this and I certainly wouldn't trust any of the manufacturers data on it.

These ain't veggie crops or beans, we're talking trees here, that can fail and kill you. Trees that get cut, weed whacked, compacted etc and defence is a critical component, so is trying to create some natural sustenance such as mulch, water, decompaction, beneficial microrhizae etc.

Sorry mate, I aint sold, the warning bells are going off. Dont like the one size fits all approach either.

That 30 of N has only 5% available right away, the rest is very slow release. We use it here in the middle of summer, up to 90 degree weather without burning trees at all.

Clearly it doesn't improve the soil itself, or at least the soil composition. It adds NPK and other nutrients, it definately doesn't make high clay soil more loamy. Done by liquid injection it also helps break up compacted soils and adds suplemental water to the soil.

When they say it helps plants build up defences what they are saying is that a tree that has sufficient nutrition is less likely to be as severly affected by harmfull insects or disease. Healthy trees are stronger right

I have not seen this excessive growth that is talked about. I have seen customers residences that have been getting the stuff every year for 10 or more years in combination with proper pruning and their trees look great.

I also don't like the one size fits all approach. Every situation should be evaluated individually, fertilizers can be usefull though.

Sean Freeman · 26th January 2008, 08:08 PM

Quote:

When they say it helps plants build up defences what they are saying is that a tree that has sufficient nutrition is less likely to be as severly affected by harmfull insects or disease. Healthy trees are stronger right

Ok, there's a few problems with viewing the consequences to the tree of the addition of available Nitrogen to the soil, in this way.

1. Fertilizers do not feed the tree, they are not nutrients. They are a combination of elements some essential some not. Nutrition for the tree is what is created on in the leaves through photosynthesis.

2.All natural soils are very low in the forms of Nitrogen required by perennial plants, trees together with all plants are genetically predetermined to take up whatever available Nitrogen there is in the soil around their roots and the mycelia of the sybiotic fungi they (nearly all) rely on.

3.The take up of Nitrogen leads to the commitment of stored Carbon resources stored by the tree, primarily in the formation of Chlorophyll molecules and at the rate of 33:1 (Carbon:Nitrogen) Nitrogen leads directly to the production of flushes of very green (chlorophyll rich) new growth

4. The tree does not have a limitless supply of stored Carbon resource, and as a biological system prioritizes the allocation of that resource...sadly defence is last on the list of the priorities....new growth is first! (Sure over time through its growth cycles the tree will capture and store more Carbon, but the debt it builds up has to be repaid and the loss in availiable Carbon impacts most heavily on the lowest priority areas that being defence.

5. Rather than being a boon for defence fertilizer induced new growth is the opposite, it actually has less defence than the older leaves.

6. Healthy trees are stronger more resiliant trees, however foliage density and colour alone are not absolute indicators of tree health.

7. The solution is in the soil and root environment but adding Nitrogen rich compounds in the form of fertilizers is not the way to create sustainable long term benefits to trees.

ozinus · 26th January 2008, 08:36 PM

Although we are a little off topic, a fantastic resource for this sort of thing is the Soil, Food Web. and will answer a lot off questions. If the Epa was doing their job correctly all chemical fertilizers would be banned because of the overall damage that it does to the soil biology as a whole and the surrounding environment. (Great barrier reef being a good example)
Chemical fertilizers are in fact salts. Although they are often times ready for immediate uptake this in no way suggests the tree wants or needs it all. The salts as we all know are in fact damaging to cells and often end up having a reverse osmotic effect upon beneficial bacteria, fungus, and other soil microbiology as well as the tree. This creates an artificial environment with a sterile soil biology and the tree becomes dependant upon the applications of fertilizer at different times throughout the year. Also diminishing the overall hardiness of the plant due to it's unnecessary need to develop an expansive root system in search of elements because they are constantly supplied. Add infinitum It's just really bad stuff....

Ekka · 26th January 2008, 08:41 PM

This discussion was brought from another thread at this point. It went off topic but was worth it's own identity.

Ekka, whats with the Blakes?

dannyboysfc · 26th January 2008, 08:41 PM

Well, what is recomended say in a case where there is a tree in a landscaped area, surrounded by turfgrass and other landscape plants. The soil over time becomes nitrogen deficient due to no breakdown of organic material in the soil. Removing the turf is not an option. The tree over time slows its growth and starts to decline, what is the solution? Agian removing the turf and mulching are not options, neither is losing or removing the tree.

OH the Arbor Green is also extreemly low in salts, which makes it less likely to burn plants, and better for the environment.

Sean Freeman · 26th January 2008, 08:49 PM

Well if you're asking what I have actually argued for in such circumstances and yes I have and am writing 10yr and longer tree management plans for park areas very high profile...the tree owners have to decide what they really want..trees or turf...long term you will be very hard pressed to keep both in anything like pristine conditions.

Vertical mulching is an option together with drenching the soil with a suitable compost tea suitability decided by quality tests that can be assessed. But ultimately without the carbon input (mulch) you're just giving CPR to a critically ill patient (for want of a suitable analogy) you can't sustain it long term you have to provide the Carbon, for many more reasons than just the organic chemistry.

Read through this little piece by someone we might remember?

TreeHelp.com: Features: Troubles in the Rhizosphere - Part 1

ozinus · 26th January 2008, 08:55 PM

I am not familiar with arbor green It may well be an organic fertilizer. For clarification the elements required for uptake are in-organic and they are salts. Ammonium nitrate, nitrites, sulphates, Humates, etc are all salts. They ore organically derived through processes in the soil from soil microbiological activities. These salts are derived in very specific ways and some of these chemical breakdowns can take millions of years to occur. To broadcast an excess of these salts around is to not clearly understand the biology subsurface and it is in fact quite detrimental. Trees have been growing throughout the world long before we ever came along and started using excessive chemicals left over by the war to facilitate plant growth. Ultimately replicating their environment as best we can is a surefire way of doing the "right thing" and working backwards from that at times of not being able to do what we think is best is going to happen.

Ekka · 26th January 2008, 09:23 PM

Take a look at the Murray/ Darling system, answers it all.

Danny, many of our natives are sensitive to phosphorus (p).

From Seans excellent link: TreeHelp.com: Features: Troubles in the Rhizosphere - Part 3

Quote:

On some subtropical and tropical trees, such as the macadamia, multi-branched clusters of non-woody roots called proteoid roots form. The proteoid roots alter the rhizosphere by acidification processes that facilitate the absorption of phosphorus-containing ions. When I examined the roots of dying macadamia nut trees in an orchard in Hawaii, I could not find proteoid roots, yet only a few days earlier I had found them on macadamia nut trees growing in the wild. I learned later that the orchard where trees were dying was heavily fertilized on a regular, basis with phosphorus.

My motto with fertilizer is natural organic is safest.

If Davey indeed provide a lot of that service then surely adding or switching to a soil beneficial organic program which incorporates some air injection along with the liquid would be more beneficial.

Go send them a link to the thread and see if you get a promotion ... or demotion.

And as far as the mowers go there's plenty of mulcher mowers on the market now which leave very little debri on the surface and blow it back into the lawn. You'll still have the compaction style issues, and the returned mulch probably not getting through the lawn anyway to the soil especially with some of the couch and buffalo types of lawns but it's a step in the right direction..

azrael · 26th January 2008, 09:37 PM

Attached Chat log discussion mostly related to Fish Emuslion.

ronnyb · 27th January 2008, 05:40 PM

This fertilizer is harmful. One instance I can recall, that they had us out fertilizining in very early spring, the ground was not even completely thawed. I fertilized a couple of crabapple trees on a property. I came back about 6 weeks later, and the grass under the trees was mostly dead. Because the soil was not completely thawed, every time that i would hit the trigger some of the solution would eventually rise back to the surface. The turf died out from nitrogen burn. 30- 40% Nitrogen is rediculously high, even if some is slow release. Besides, a tree is able (and we want it to) to extend it's root system for the purpose of acquiring and uptaking nutrients. Pump nitrogen into the ground, and the tree no longer has the need to. Bottom line is this- On an average day my total for fert would be $2000, on a really good day $3000. 4 or 5 trucks out every day. You do the math and tell me if what we were doing was good for the trees, or good for the company.

ozinus · 27th January 2008, 05:49 PM

I love you buddy, dunno if you should be so overt about it considering your position but I love you

25th January 2008, 05:30 PM	#1 (permalink)
ronnyb Semi-mature vigorous tree Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Wisconsin Posts: 64	Tree Arbor Green Fertilizer I was a foreman with Davey for a while in the residential department. One of the few companies that took training seriously. No progression meant no promotion or pay raise. The division manager was something else though. He was promoted through the ranks, and wouldn't fire his friend (lawn guy) when he was caught stealing for the Nth time. They also really oversell the fertilization. High nitrogen fertilizer (30%) really fuc*s the trees up when applied year after year, but hey, it's big money so keep pumping it in the ground.

25th January 2008, 10:54 PM	#2 (permalink)
Ekka Eric Frei Administrator - Brisbane L5 (Dip) Hort Cert III Arb + some Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Brisbane Posts: 6,815	What happens to high N fertilized trees over time, got pics? __________________ Remember to use the "search" function, if you have answers/questions post them so everyone can benefit. Free Tree and Green Industry Link Directory Qualified Brisbane Tree Lopping Brisbane Tree Care, Consultations and Arborist Reports Forum Sponsors

26th January 2008, 04:40 PM	#5 (permalink)
Ekka Eric Frei Administrator - Brisbane L5 (Dip) Hort Cert III Arb + some Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Brisbane Posts: 6,815	Well, I read everything. 30-10-7 is pretty darned aggressive especially when injected into the soil profile, I wouldn't advise it here and it might even burn a few natives. I cannot see how the soil itself is improved? I cannot see if there's any organic matter going in there. As far as plants building up defences I'd debate that point till no tomorrow. Trees will sacrifice defence over growth every time, more nutrient availability means more growth, could also lead to over extended and more likely to fail trees ... could grow till they break. It's one thing to pitch an angle that suggests the fertilizer replaces what's natural in a forest, that's some tricky snake oil there. Been to a forest? Oh, there's mulch not lawn, there's diversity, there's grafting and shelter with fauna (critters) all working together. So now we chemically duplicate the forests soil nutrient content, forget all the other things that go on in a forest and give it to our urban trees. Interesting, I'd like to see the long term repercussions of this and I certainly wouldn't trust any of the manufacturers data on it. These ain't veggie crops or beans, we're talking trees here, that can fail and kill you. Trees that get cut, weed whacked, compacted etc and defence is a critical component, so is trying to create some natural sustenance such as mulch, water, decompaction, beneficial microrhizae etc. Sorry mate, I aint sold, the warning bells are going off. Dont like the one size fits all approach either. __________________ Remember to use the "search" function, if you have answers/questions post them so everyone can benefit. Free Tree and Green Industry Link Directory Qualified Brisbane Tree Lopping Brisbane Tree Care, Consultations and Arborist Reports Forum Sponsors

26th January 2008, 08:41 PM	#9 (permalink)
Ekka Eric Frei Administrator - Brisbane L5 (Dip) Hort Cert III Arb + some Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Brisbane Posts: 6,815	Re: Davey Arbor Green Fertilizer This discussion was brought from another thread at this point. It went off topic but was worth it's own identity. Ekka, whats with the Blakes? __________________ Remember to use the "search" function, if you have answers/questions post them so everyone can benefit. Free Tree and Green Industry Link Directory Qualified Brisbane Tree Lopping Brisbane Tree Care, Consultations and Arborist Reports Forum Sponsors

26th January 2008, 08:41 PM	#10 (permalink)
dannyboysfc Semi-mature vigorous tree Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: California Posts: 121	Re: Davey Arbor Green Fertilizer Well, what is recomended say in a case where there is a tree in a landscaped area, surrounded by turfgrass and other landscape plants. The soil over time becomes nitrogen deficient due to no breakdown of organic material in the soil. Removing the turf is not an option. The tree over time slows its growth and starts to decline, what is the solution? Agian removing the turf and mulching are not options, neither is losing or removing the tree. OH the Arbor Green is also extreemly low in salts, which makes it less likely to burn plants, and better for the environment.

26th January 2008, 08:01 AM	#3 (permalink)
ronnyb Semi-mature vigorous tree Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Wisconsin Posts: 64	They are insect magnets. Heavy feeding resulting in dieback. They end up looking terrible. Sorry, no pics. Our digital camera drains the batteries in 5-6 pictures. My wife and I can't agree on a replacement either.

26th January 2008, 03:58 PM	#4 (permalink)
dannyboysfc Semi-mature vigorous tree Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: California Posts: 121	Davey: Davey Arbor Green? <i>PRO</i> The link is to what Davey has to say about it. My experience tells me that overall in urban areas fertilization is a huge improvement. Certian trees though(specifically magnolias and tulip tree) when already infested with aphids or scale, seem to do worse than if not fertilized. I cant prove this scientifically, just observation from personal experience. Also, I have accidentally hugely overdosed a tree with the stuff and it did no apparent dammage at all.

26th January 2008, 08:36 PM	#8 (permalink)
ozinus Banned Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Brisbane Posts: 59	Although we are a little off topic, a fantastic resource for this sort of thing is the Soil, Food Web. and will answer a lot off questions. If the Epa was doing their job correctly all chemical fertilizers would be banned because of the overall damage that it does to the soil biology as a whole and the surrounding environment. (Great barrier reef being a good example) Chemical fertilizers are in fact salts. Although they are often times ready for immediate uptake this in no way suggests the tree wants or needs it all. The salts as we all know are in fact damaging to cells and often end up having a reverse osmotic effect upon beneficial bacteria, fungus, and other soil microbiology as well as the tree. This creates an artificial environment with a sterile soil biology and the tree becomes dependant upon the applications of fertilizer at different times throughout the year. Also diminishing the overall hardiness of the plant due to it's unnecessary need to develop an expansive root system in search of elements because they are constantly supplied. Add infinitum It's just really bad stuff....

26th January 2008, 08:49 PM	#11 (permalink)
Sean Freeman PDF King & Arborist Extrodinaire Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Townsville Nth Queensland & Gold Coast Sth Queensland Posts: 1,638	Re: Davey Arbor Green Fertilizer Well if you're asking what I have actually argued for in such circumstances and yes I have and am writing 10yr and longer tree management plans for park areas very high profile...the tree owners have to decide what they really want..trees or turf...long term you will be very hard pressed to keep both in anything like pristine conditions. Vertical mulching is an option together with drenching the soil with a suitable compost tea suitability decided by quality tests that can be assessed. But ultimately without the carbon input (mulch) you're just giving CPR to a critically ill patient (for want of a suitable analogy) you can't sustain it long term you have to provide the Carbon, for many more reasons than just the organic chemistry. Read through this little piece by someone we might remember? TreeHelp.com: Features: Troubles in the Rhizosphere - Part 1 __________________ Sean Trees are poems that earth writes upon the sky, We fell them down and turn them into paper, That we may record our emptiness. - Kahlil Gibran

26th January 2008, 08:55 PM	#12 (permalink)
ozinus Banned Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Brisbane Posts: 59	Re: Davey Arbor Green Fertilizer I am not familiar with arbor green It may well be an organic fertilizer. For clarification the elements required for uptake are in-organic and they are salts. Ammonium nitrate, nitrites, sulphates, Humates, etc are all salts. They ore organically derived through processes in the soil from soil microbiological activities. These salts are derived in very specific ways and some of these chemical breakdowns can take millions of years to occur. To broadcast an excess of these salts around is to not clearly understand the biology subsurface and it is in fact quite detrimental. Trees have been growing throughout the world long before we ever came along and started using excessive chemicals left over by the war to facilitate plant growth. Ultimately replicating their environment as best we can is a surefire way of doing the "right thing" and working backwards from that at times of not being able to do what we think is best is going to happen.

27th January 2008, 05:40 PM	#15 (permalink)
ronnyb Semi-mature vigorous tree Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Wisconsin Posts: 64	Re: Tree Arbor Green Fertilizer This fertilizer is harmful. One instance I can recall, that they had us out fertilizining in very early spring, the ground was not even completely thawed. I fertilized a couple of crabapple trees on a property. I came back about 6 weeks later, and the grass under the trees was mostly dead. Because the soil was not completely thawed, every time that i would hit the trigger some of the solution would eventually rise back to the surface. The turf died out from nitrogen burn. 30- 40% Nitrogen is rediculously high, even if some is slow release. Besides, a tree is able (and we want it to) to extend it's root system for the purpose of acquiring and uptaking nutrients. Pump nitrogen into the ground, and the tree no longer has the need to. Bottom line is this- On an average day my total for fert would be $2000, on a really good day $3000. 4 or 5 trucks out every day. You do the math and tell me if what we were doing was good for the trees, or good for the company.

27th January 2008, 05:49 PM	#16 (permalink)
ozinus Banned Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Brisbane Posts: 59	Re: Tree Arbor Green Fertilizer I love you buddy, dunno if you should be so overt about it considering your position but I love you