Month: December 2011

I am a last minute shopper.  There, I admitted it, and I’m proud of it.  By waiting until the last minute I get to hear about everyone else’s great gifts — and then buy those same gifts for someone else!  that said, here’s a short list of gifts for gardeners — including a few that I wouldn’t mind having myself.

#1  Books — they’re great, especially in the off-season when the gardener in your life needs some inspiration.  Naturally books by a garden professor is preferred, but I also love anything by Lee Reich.  Another one of my new favorites is the book Taming the Truffle.  For something different try The Foragers Harvest by Samuel Thayer.

#2 Pruners — You can NEVER have enough pruners.  There are many nice pruners out there, but the standard by which all others are measured are the Felco #2s.

#3 Gloves — you can never have too many gloves!  I prefer leather — most gardeners have their personal preferences.

#4 Weird seeds.  OK, it’s a little late to be searching high and low — but most gardeners really love to try new things — so go and get ’em something totally off the wall.  Something beyond tomatoes, cucumbers, squash and watermelons (peanuts maybe).  See if you can find Pawpaw!

#5  A renewable organic fertilizer — not guano or rock phosphate.  Something like cotton seed meal.  Manure is probably a no-no though.  Who wants poo in their stockings?

#6  Moisture sensors of all different types can be fun to play with.

#7  Some fun houseplants — Amaryllis is always a winner – even for non-gardeners!  For the more adventurous look to carnivorous plants like butterwort or even a venus flytrap.

Happy Holidays Everyone!

One thing I’ve always enjoyed about living in Michigan is that we are virtually guaranteed to have a white Christmas each year.  This is in stark contrast to western Washington where I grew up where a white Christmas was a relatively rare event.  In fact, to make the locals feel better, one of the popular songs on the radio play lists during the holidays is “Christmas in the Northwest is a gift God wrapped in green.”  Actually, He usually wraps it in grey fog or drizzle but hey, it’s a nice sentiment.

And for the Great Lakes region and much of the eastern US, a white Christmas may not turn out to be such a sure thing after all.  Snowfall in the East is way off compared to last year.  According to data from National Operational Hydrologic Remote Sensing Center http://www.nohrsc.noaa.gov/nsa/index.html?region=Northern_Great_Lakes&year=2011&month=12&day=14&units=e , only about one-third (33.7%) of the Great Lakes region had snow cover as of last week and the average depth was only 0.9”.

This is quite a difference from a year ago in mid-December when 99.7% of the Great Lakes region was covered with an average of 9” of snow.

Of course, this is Michigan and things can change in hurry.  But right now the forecast for the next couple days is for temps in the upper-30’s and low 40’s.  There’s a chance of snow showers on Saturday so we’ll keep our fingers crossed and hang our hats on a Christmas eve snow for our White Christmas.

May your days be merry and bright, and may all your Christmases be white!

Okay, I’m biased:  I’m a whole plant physiologist, meaning that I like to study entire plants in their environment, not just their cells or DNA in a lab.  I got hooked on plants as an undergraduate in marine biology when I took plant physiology for “fun” (translated: I couldn’t find another biology elective to fill the time slot).  Discovering why vines curl around fenceposts (thigmotropism) or how plants sense gravity (statoliths) or why bilaterally symmetrical flowers evolved (to accomodate pollinators) was fascinating, and I finally succumbed to the green side when I entered my PhD program.

The book I used as a student was Salisbury & Ross’s Plant Physiology.  There were other texts out there, but this was my bible and I used newer editions when I began to teach Plant Physiology.  Recently (as some of you know) I’ve begun to write a garden book on how plants work.  Plant physiology, of course, is the underlying science, and I needed a new text for fact checking.

Salisbury and Ross, sadly, has not been updated since 1991, so I went with Taiz and Zeiger (which has also been around a long time).  It was a shock for me to discover that plant physiology has somehow morphed into plant molecular biology.  The books is full of gene acronyms and regulatory pathways…but very little of what fascinated me as a student.

Science has been on the reductionist pathway for a long time, and there’s no denying that understanding how genes are regulated is important.  But except for the fields of human and veterinary medicine, we’re losing our understanding of how organisms work.  Faculty experts who specialized in studying algae or mosses or grasses or trees for the sole purpose of increasing our understanding of these species have been replaced with those whose research programs can generate big dollars for cash-strapped universities.  The void left by academia’s abandonment of practical plant science is quickly filled with pseudoscience and mysticism, particularly in alternative agriculture.

All I can say is that if I had been confronted with the 2010 Taiz and Zeiger text as an undergraduate I would have a PhD in marine biology instead.

Last Christmas tree post for me this year and, sadly, it’s not a pleasant one.  As reported by that beacon of journalistic integrity, FOX news, right-wing bloggers killed a marketing check-off program that US Christmas tree producers had worked years to enact.

 http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/11/09/merry-christmas-agriculture-department-imposes-christmas-tree-tax/

For those that are not familiar, a check-off program or agriculture marketing order is an assessment that a commodity group levies against itself to raise money for marketing and research.  Common examples of marketing campaigns associated with check-off programs are “Pork – the other white meat”, “Beef – it’s what’s for dinner”, “the incredible edible egg”, and “Got milk?”  In the case of the Christmas tree check-off, growers voted to assess themselves a 15-cent fee for each tree harvested to go into fund to support a marketing campaign and research.  A majority of US growers felt the program was a good idea in order to promote their product against foreign-produced artificial trees.  The USDA gets involved in these programs essentially as a neutral third party to help collect the fees and oversee the operation of the marketing board, which is made up of growers and grower-elected representatives.  If the growers didn’t like how the program was working out, they had the option to kill the check-off after three years.

All sounds pretty reasonable and rational, right?  It did until right-wing blogger David Addington stumbled up the marketing order in the Federal Register and dubbed it “Obama’s Christmas tree tax”.  http://blog.heritage.org/2011/11/08/obama-couldnt-wait-his-new-christmas-tree-tax/   Once ‘Obama’ and ‘tax’ hit the blogosphere you might as well cue up Don Meredith signing ‘Turn out the lights, the party’s over.’  Just in time for the holiday news cycle, media outlets all over the country pounced on the story.

The ironies are to numerous to mention all of them, but here are just a few.  I attended a regional meeting of growers when the check-off was being debated.  Except for the university scientists and extension observers on-hand, the number of people in the room that voted for Obama in the last election was roughly zero.  Moreover, it was the US growers themselves, not Obama or the USDA that pushed for the check-off.  To the best my knowledge, both the President and the USDA have enough on their plates already without sitting around thinking “You know, announcing a tax on Christmas trees right before Christmas would be a good idea”.

While ironies abound, so do disappointments.  The administration, with little to gain except a lot of negative and misinformed press, quickly washed its hands of the proposal.  This means the US producers; many of whom had invested years developing and championing the marketing program to stave off competition from China, are left back at square one.  In fact, after the traction given to the right-wing portrayal of their self-assessment as ‘Obama’s tax’, US growers are now a couple steps behind square one.  And it’s doubtful they’ll be able to get back to the start line any time soon.

If you’re getting sick of the compost tea debate then you can skip this post.  If not, then read on! 

This past week I received my copy of Arboriculture and Urban Forestry 37(6).  And in it, page 269, I discovered an article titled “Laboratory Assays on the Effects of Aerated Compost Tea and Fertilization on Biochemical Properties and Denitrification in a Silt Loam and Bt Clay Loam Soils” by Bryant Scharenbroch, William Treaurer, Michelle Catania and Vincent Brand.  Basically what the authors did was to add dilute compost tea, concentrated compost tea, and a fertilizer to a couple of different types of soil in a laboratory setting to establish how they changed the soil.  To be honest the article was a little tough to read for a non-soil scientist and I found myself looking up terms quite often.  Still, I found their conclusions fascinating.  There were actually a number of conclusions, I’m just going to cover what I think are the most interesting:

1. “Aerated Compost tea appears INFERIOR  [you read that right – inferior] compared to fertilizer in its ability to increase microbial biomass, microbial activity” and a few other things.   Hmmm…I’d been told that microbes hated synthetic fertilizer.  I guess not all microbes agree.  In terms of the fertilizer used, it was a 30-10-7.  I didn’t see it explicitly stated in the article, but I’d bet it was a synthetic fertilizer called Arbor Green Pro.  It was applied at what I would consider a heavy dose.
2. Aerated compost tea, or at least the compost tea tested in this article, did contain a significant amount of nutrients.
3. On the up side for compost tea it was pointed out that compost tea treatments might help a poor soil retain more nitrogen.  Maybe…but the authors also pointed out that “only the fertilizer treatment appeared to deliver enough available nitrogen to potentially meet tree needs in the Bt horizon soils” (in other words poorer soils).  Interesting – but if we just added compost we’d have a better soil anyway, which brings us to the next point….
4. The compost tea tested contained only a small portion of the microorganisms that compost does.

So what’s the take home message from this article?  This wasn’t explicitly stated in the article — in fact I’m not even sure the authors would agree with me — but to me the important message is 1) ADD COMPOST and 2) IF YOU NEED TO ADD NUTRIENTS ADD FERTILIZER NOT COMPOST TEA (though I’d go with a nice renewable organic rather than a synthetic).