Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm curious if anybody else has come across this Professors research/articles before. I was just googling to better understand amending the soil in my garden and stumbled across it. I was intrigued because it was one of the few I found to recommend against adding significant organic matter into your soil. Her website has a bunch of other "myths" that she addresses. I haven't gone through them all because honestly my knowledge is so limited I don't even know most of the myths being referenced in the first place.
I'm curious if anybody else has come across this Professors research/articles before. I was just googling to better understand amending the soil in my garden and stumbled across it. I was intrigued because it was one of the few I found to recommend against adding significant organic matter into your soil. Her website has a bunch of other "myths" that she addresses. I haven't gone through them all because honestly my knowledge is so limited I don't even know most of the myths being referenced in the first place.
Interesting. I didn’t read a lot of them, but I agree there are myths.
From my Master Gardener course, one of the myths I can think of is that organic compounds are better for your plants than chemicals. For example, plants could not care less if they are getting their nitrogen from grass clippings or fertilizer, or their calcium from egg shells or the bag from the feed store. In general, natural sources break down too slowly to do much good.
Interesting. I didn’t read a lot of them, but I agree there are myths.
From my Master Gardener course, one of the myths I can think of is that organic compounds are better for your plants than chemicals. For example, plants could not care less if they are getting their nitrogen from grass clippings or fertilizer, or their calcium from egg shells or the bag from the feed store. In general, natural sources break down too slowly to do much good.
Yeah that one got addressed in there. The one that really shocked me is all her posts on amending the soil which is how I stumbled on the site in the first place. Her argument generally boils down to, in the long run it's bad because the roots be designed for the softer organic material. Then when it reaches the boundary to your native soil they will loop around the mixture you made almost like a large potted plant/root ball. Also the soil will settle eventually as the organic material decomposes differently. As somebody with a lot of clay in my ground I'm still not 100% sure which to believe.
But seriously, just perusing her topic titles, some of the ideas she is debunking really do need to be debunked, others I am dubious of her stance. People have done amazing things to recondition poor and damaged soils without expensive, artificial ammendments. I am not orthodox on either position. I think one should do what works on their particular land.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeavingNYCfast
The one that really shocked me is all her posts on amending the soil which is how I stumbled on the site in the first place. Her argument generally boils down to, in the long run it's bad because the roots be designed for the softer organic material. Then when it reaches the boundary to your native soil they will loop around the mixture you made almost like a large potted plant/root ball. Also the soil will settle eventually as the organic material decomposes differently. As somebody with a lot of clay in my ground I'm still not 100% sure which to believe.
When I worked as a tree transplanter, almost 20 years ago, it was well known that simply filling holes with soft, organic material (actually it doesn't have to be organic, just softer/looser than the surrounding soil) causes root-balling and poor rooting in general, thus weak, leaning trees. Our area consisted of very hard, alkaline soils, so our practice was to mix a small amount of compost with the natural soil so the roots would still penetrate the surrounding natural soil.
But seriously, just perusing her topic titles, some of the ideas she is debunking really do need to be debunked, others I am dubious of her stance. People have done amazing things to recondition poor and damaged soils without expensive, artificial ammendments. I am not orthodox on either position. I think one should do what works on their particular land.
When I worked as a tree transplanter, almost 20 years ago, it was well known that simply filling holes with soft, organic material (actually it doesn't have to be organic, just softer/looser than the surrounding soil) causes root-balling and poor rooting in general, thus weak, leaning trees. Our area consisted of very hard, alkaline soils, so our practice was to mix a small amount of compost with the natural soil so the roots would still penetrate the surrounding natural soil.
I agree with the above. Our extension agent taught us that in both the Master Gardener and Tree Steward courses. That's why it's important to plant trees "high" (too many trees die by drowning them), and by digging a hole twice as wide as deep and mixing the native soils in so the roots can transition to the surrounding soil. I also mulch out to the drip line, since most of the roots are in the top 18 in. of the soil, and the mulch both conserves the water and keeps the roots from having to compete with other vegetation for moisture.
You've heard the saying eveyone has one, an opinion, her's is just that. What is successful for you is is the correct method.
Native plants in the wild do fine with native undisturbed soil, commercially grown plants with their amendend starter soil and/or their seeds do best with an amended soil and nutrient. Done correctly you'll have great succes and satisfaction. (My opinion)
Interesting.
…
From my Master Gardener course, one of the myths I can think of is that organic compounds are better for your plants than chemicals. For example, plants could not care less if they are getting their nitrogen from grass clippings or fertilizer, or their calcium from egg shells or the bag from the feed store. In general, natural sources break down too slowly to do much good.
I beg to differ. It is the truth, but not the whole truth The fertilizer does make a difference in plant’s life
The productive soil not only has some chemical attributes like fertilizer has, but it has physical and biological attributes as well- the synthetic fertilizer does not contribute to those features and fertilizer is actually detrimental to biological life in the soil and actually destroys physical features of the soil like structure , porosity, infiltration rate, etc. in the long and not so long run.
Everyone who saw crusty stuff on their houseplants clay pots can attest to that- those are salts from the houseplants fertilizer and possibly from the hard water as well- which is recommend to wash away or better- to re-plant the houseplant in a new soil.
It is impossible to replace all poisoned soil in your garden
In addition, what is chemical fertilizer?
Take 10-10-10 for example.
It provides only 3 macronutrients, whereas the success of the garden depends on many more macro and micronutrients.: some of them are still unidentifiable…It is very easy to upset the balance of nutrients in the soil: put too much zinc- now your plants lack copper- which is found plenty in the soil, but the plant can’t take it in, etc.
50 Lb bag of 10-10-10 fertilizer contains only 5 lbs of nitrogen, less than 5 lbs phosphorus and less than 5 lbs of potassium. What is the rest of more than 35 lbs you have just spread on your lawn where your children play, your vegetable garden your family is using?
It is an industrial waste.
To my knowledge only 3 states in our nation require the disclosure of the ingredients:Texas, Washington an Oregon.
Go the Washington agriculture department and search for fertilizers and input the name of the fertilizer you are using.
You might be unpleasantly surprised.
The reason it is done by the industry is not out of goodness of their heart but for profit.
To dispose the industrial waste is very expensive and is strictly regulated.
However, if you add some pigs pee- urea- another waste and the source of nitrogen - now you can call it “fertilizer “ and different disposal rules apply.
Profits help too.
Hope, that everyone is realizing that all Master Gardener’s programs in the US are under the edifice of USDA land grant universities with some tiny exceptions.
It means the Master Gardener’s Programs are not based on organic agriculture as a rule. The USDA and the Master Gardener programs will heavily promote toxic and harmful for health and environment pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers.
There is such thing as lie by omission of these important facts.
Last edited by L00k4ward; 07-26-2021 at 01:17 PM..
Don't get me started on myths. There's so many because people just read and believe and never experience or try it themselves. I know quite a few
Quote:
" The Myth of Tree Topping (pdf)
The Bottom Line
• Tree topping is never a justifiable pruning practice; it increases tree health problems and is
aesthetically unappealing
• A topped tree will require constant maintenance and has an increased potential to become
hazardous "
what a joke. And this is the kind of wrong info that spreads on the internet when people don't even experience it themselves.
I guess the author never seen wind storms that break off the tops of trees and the tree continues to grow back and never has "problems".
Someone go look at my Pine tree I keep topping that is still healthy after 13yrs
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
what a joke. And this is the kind of wrong info that spreads on the internet when people don't even experience it themselves. 
