< Personally, I never fertilise my Japanese maples, being of the belief that this will simply exaggerate growth and make the plants 'leggy' . They grow a much better shape left to their own devices. I also seem to remember that fertliser is not generally recommended for the plants by Vertrees, for example. I could be mistaken, given my memory lapses :) > Whether to fertilize or not is up to the individual person. There are some misconceptions with the effects of fertilizers on Japanese Maples and the "leggy" comment is one of them. That is simply not true. Another area of oversight is that Mr. Vertrees did indeed fertilize his Maples. It is not much different a reality than my advising people not to plant their Maples here in a Western exposure, yet I will do it. The difference is I know how to keep the Maples alive whereas most people will most likely create real problems for themselves doing what I will do here. I am not going to write a treatise on the effects of nutrients on Maples although I probably could. It seems every time I walk into a nursery for the first time in Oregon I am asked what to use for a fertilizer and when should they fertilize. Then again people know that I have had some discussions of fertilizers on Maples with Mr. Vertrees in the past as well as others in Eugene and Corvallis several years ago. When dealing with a person that has a genuine interest in Maples, that will read up on his or her plant and then develop some pertinent questions as to why their Maple that books state are red during the growing season and are not red right now, what do we tell them?. We do not have any books on Maples that discusses how to grow them, even basic growing information, notwithstanding, discussing the many areas globally where Maples are being grown and how those growing areas differ from each other. I've obviously failed to impress on people that what works for me here may not be how they will want to work things where they are. The reason is because I may know how environmental factors and climate elsewhere affects Maples better than most people. I've witnessed in another thread that someone made comment that Maples are better left alone and look best in their natural settings but what was not mentioned is that those native settings are in Japan. Sure, Maples can be left alone growing wild on certain Islands of Japan but growing culture changes in mainland Japan. I've seen Maples that looked great in their natural settings and 2 years later were dead also. No one mentions that, do they? I've told about Beni shidare variegated that when we see the Maple in its best color that we can expect to lose the plant within 2 years. How do I know that? We assume that Mr. Vertrees knew all about that Maple because he wrote about it in his book but he first learned what he knew from someone else and that someone else was the person that gave Mr. Vertrees that plant only after Mr. Vertrees made that Maple an issue by at first saying it did not exist. Then he had the proof in the pudding, so to speak, to see for himself what that Maple is all about. There was a time when issues were ironed out by letting someone see how things were for themselves. Now, we generally just take someone else's word for it. Whether you want to fertilize your Maples or not is your business but to generalize that applications of nutrients on Maples makes them leggy depends entirely on how much fertilizer we applied, how often we fertilized and when did we fertilize. What form of fertilizer did we use? Then, depending on which variety of Maple did the legginess come about? Was the legginess rampant or prevalent with all of the varieties of Maples that were fertilized or was the legginess restricted to just a few Atropurpureums? Another misconception is that applying a complete and/or a balanced fertilizer will promote growth. In many of the dwarf forms of Japanese Maples that a nitrate form of Nitrogen applied in the early Spring will help act as a preventative for excessive leaf burn later during the Summer, yet a flush of new growth is not readily seen until late Summer. Who can tell me why that is? I do not have to answer the two recent questions on Fireglow because I already pretty well answered the basic questions in a recent thread. I see Elmore has just added a noteworthy response to them. My Fireglow right now just put out a flush of new growth equal to what it would take most people in other growing areas no less than 2-3 years to achieve. I have not fertilized my plant since the second week in April, yet I will give it some 0-10-10 in October. Even though initially the plant burned up and lost 3/4 of its leaves why was I not concerned about that Maple? It does the same thing for me every year grown in a container in a Western exposure. The misses Fireglow is planted in an Eastern exposure protected by Soquel Redwoods and my plant can deal with the hot winds and the heat far better than hers can and her Maple has permanent irrigation and mine has me and the "dumb part of the hose". Is the magic being performed by me or is it that my Maple has adapted better to my growing conditions and that the nutrient flow in the plant may have an ability to help sustain the plant for the long term rather than for the short term? The problem we all have is that we think in terms of a fertilizer helping for the short term when I want long term effects that I can see and gauge my results by. Anyone care to ask why I use 0-10-10 religiously during the Fall for almost all of my plants, Camellias, Conifers, Magnolias, Michelias, Dogwoods and Maples included? Take into account that the 0-10-10 also has 10% Calcium as well as an assortment of micro-nutrients also. What happens to our plants when there are no more nutrients readily available to the plant? Transplant shock may be one thing but anemia based on lack of nutrient flow is usually lethal to a plant Enough already. Jim
Jim-- Thanks for giving me something to do tonight:) A very worthy discussion you bring to light, the never-ending banter about fertilizer. It seems to me that your expertise in the cultivation of fruit trees and the like puts you at a sight advantage, or should I say makes you an indespensible wealth of knowledge. And as you point out, where flowering and fruiting is concerned, the effects of fertilization has been studied in-depth to obtian the most favorable outcomes-but in the case of Maples and oramental trees that degree of information is certainly not contained in any volume or place. I myself have repeatedly "blamed" the leggy rampant growth of some cultivars on Nitrogen, but after close analysis of your comments, I have only to say you are right. I fertilize all my trees nearly the same, so why don't they all grow from all chutes? My dissectums generally grow somewhat uniformly while those one would consider upright gowers are more subject to leggy or unilater growth of a particular leader or two. Some very small dwarf trees like Sharp's Pygmy, Goshiki kotohime, and Yuri hime exhibit relatively uniform growth, where many semi-dwarf and verigates exhibit the more leggy unilateral growth. All different growth patterns independent of fertilizer application--excluding the effects that might result from the application of high amounts of soluble nitrotrogen. Your point well taken. Additionally, you disscuss fall application of fertilizer, a process that may be neglected with the over-emphasis or one-sided documentation concerning sping applications. Your 0-10-10 and micronutrients is meant to assist in winter preparation as well as sping, yes? Phosphosus to help in fall root development as well as calcium to assist in the firming of buds and both integral in the hardening off of active growth, correct? Phosphorous, potassium and micronutrients although benefical to the tree will also have a prolonged presence at the site of application, or will not readily be washed away by the rains of winter and therefore be available in spring to assist in the awakening of the dormant tree--providing for healthy and strong spring leafing and growth. Well....not sure after all my typing if your post was rhetorical or meant to be answered, but I hope you will correct where I have mis-spoken. We certainl cannot hope for a benefical exchange if the neophytes of the group won't do the homework..I feel like I am in school, LOL. So missing from your 0-10-10 is nitrogen. Since any readily available soluable inorganic nitrogen will be washed away over the winter, or worse, stimulate late-season soft growth, can/should a polymerized slow-release nitrogen be applied. Theoretically this would be available in spring when the tree begins active growth. Would this be a better or additionally effective way to make sure nitrogent is available in the spring, rather than guessing, "I see a few buds swelling, better apply some fertilizer"? Are there some proven fertilzation practices for fruit trees, shrubs, etc. that we can apply to mapes? I have heard the importance of calcium and calcium nitrate tossed around. Are we missing an important piece of the puzzle when it comes to the formation of buds and root health. Lastly, what about balance??? I read that when Nitrogen is out of balance, low, high etc. one would expect to see the same of potassium and phosphorous, or that P and K are not effectively utilized when nitrogen defficiency/excess is present. Is this true for micronutrients also? One good ramble deserves another, yours being a bit more benefical that mine--I think your point being the study of cultivars and their growing environments, each being unique, is as valuable as what fertilizer you apply and when, otherwise, how would you know what and when to apply if you don't know why you are applying it:) I think I'm finished, I hope I didn't encourage a treatise, although I would be honored to read it when you write it--Michael
Hi Michael: Well, I am in an area now where the old guard in Maples liked having me around. We used to discuss growing Maples all the time and there is no set, correct way to do everything. The growing aspect has been our weak link in Maples for years. A lot of us when we've analyzed what went wrong with our Maple that we lost felt that with better care we might not have lost the plant. It has been universally reasoned that something we could not control such as Verticillium was the reason but in more cases the reason the plant died was because of us. We saw red flags and did nothing to help the situation and then when we saw the plant start to shut down we tried to save it but it was too late. We knew in our minds that we could have helped but didn't do it. Sam, my post was not directed at you in any way even though I used your post to be a springboard to get me started. What you wrote is the prevalent opinion of a lot of people and has been for a long time. I cannot fault you in what you wrote as where you are there may not be a real need to fertilize with Nitrogen but I've seen the proverbial nutrient well dry up for people that had plants in the ground for 20 years or more and after they lost their special Maple they were hurt even more when I told them that they probably could have saved the tree all along. What they thought was Verticllium Wilt or Phtophthora as the causal agent for the trees demise was in actuality an anemia brought about from lack of nutrients. I've seen it here, I've seen it in Oregon, I've seen it in Japan and I've seen it in New Zealand. My thread was not meant to be rhetorical in nature, nor was it a parting shot to anyone. It is simply an issue that people that have had Maples really do not want to talk about. Even people that have told me they do not fertilize their Maples will change their tune when I give them "the look" and then tell me what they have been using and ask for my opinion on what they should be using. I never have understood why we have to bust people in Maples and in Conifers also to get them to tell us the truth. Doesn't matter. The whole purpose if there was one for my thread was to get you guys to think. Put your minds together and reason out what you are doing and why. You guys in time can write your own book on Maple growing culture. You do not need the more knowledgeable people to help you if you guys will just think the growing issues out. Trust me, we all are trying to figure out what is going on. None of us have all of the answers and I can even state that none of us have half of the growing answers yet. Another weakness, as I still see it, is not knowing the Maple we are trying to grow. Yes, there are forms that are indeed leggy regardless of whether we apply a fertilizer or not. We have to understand the nature of the Maple we are growing and we have to piece together the parts of the growing puzzle, one by one, to better understand our Maple and its needs. We further complicate the situation by wanting to grow many different Maples all at once but we have to grow them in order to learn from them. In a wholesale nursery we have to lose some plants to better learn what not to do for a variety of cultivars. No one talks about the plants we had to lose for us to learn and know how to grow the plant. It is just one of those necessary evils we have to contend with and overcome by learning from our mistakes. I'll wait for another day to get into the reasons why I feel 0-10-10 is more important applied in the Fall that many applications of Nitrogen are in the Spring. I'll go through your excellent post a little later but I did not see any glaring mistakes by what you wrote after a quick read. Best regards, Jim
Ramblings Mr. Shep, I have grown many different varieties of plants. As a rule, I have found where the plant occurs naturally, then try my best to mimic the soil nutrients. Dealing with the seedlings like I have, I still have not been able to come up with a fertilize program that works for everything. Your fertilize method for fall is a very good idea, because, good root health promotes healthy tree. One other thing, calcium. Not enough is ever said about the importance of calcium. It is probably the most important nutrient. I use calcium carbonate #14 mesh in the fall, followed in the spring by dolomite lime. I live in an acidic area, so lime is constantly in demand.
