I’m in the midst of grading papers for my nursery management class, and something that I’m running across is an incredible number of papers where the students are recommending balanced fertilizers. Why are they doing that? Or maybe an even better question is, what is a balanced fertilizer? A balanced fertilizer is a fertilizer which has three numbers which are about the same, like a 10-10-10. The problem with balanced fertilizers is that they are much higher in phosphorus than what most plants need — at least in relation to the amount of nitrogen and potassium which plants need. Especially here in Minnesota, where there is usually plenty of phosphorus in the ground, this extra phosphorus serves no purpose except to pollute waterways. We have got to break the cycle of just assuming that a balanced fertilizer is the way to go. I get to see a lot of soil tests from old agricultural fields where balanced fertilizers were used for years and years. Usually 10-10-10. What I usually see — with very few exceptions — are phosphorus and potassium levels which are either very high or off the charts entirely. Phosphorus and potassium don’t move readily in the soil while nitrogen does, so every year that you add 10-10-10 in the appropriate amount for your plants needs for nitrogen you’re adding too much phosphorus and potassium. Any extra nitrogen which you add will move through your soil, but P and K will build up year after year (and some will run-off into gutters and drains). So what do I recommend? I like a ratio of about 5-1-2 or 5-1-3 for an N-P-K ratio in a general use fertilizer.
Category: Uncategorized
The decline of Extension and the increased need for science-based information
I hate to be the downer this week, given Bert and Holly’s inspired posts, but reality continues to hit – or bite. The budget crises in Washington state continues to gut higher education, and one of the hardest hit areas at WSU is Extension. Land-grant institutions have a federal mandate to provide Extension services, and this sets WSU and similar universities apart from other state schools. Unfortunately, Extension generates relatively little in terms of outside grants and contracts. Land-grant universities like WSU tend to put their dwindling faculty resources into hiring those who can bring in multi-million dollar grants. And as we’ve bemoaned in past posts, that isn’t in gardening or urban horticulture or arboriculture or any of those great topics that you all love to hear more about.
Let’s look what’s happened with Extension specialists at WSU. Before I came in 2004, the Extension plant pathology specialist had retired. The position was refilled with someone else. The Extension entomology specialist retired last year. His position will be refilled with someone to work with the structural pest control industry (there is some money there). The questions that come from the public are shuffled around among other faculty, who may or may not have some partial appointment in Extension. In any case, the public outreach and education aspect of land grant universities everywhere is taking the back seat to bringing in grant dollars and teaching college students. That means fewer Extension Bulletins published or updated and more reliance on well-funded companies to provide their versions – good or bad – of agricultural sciences.
I’m not going to rail about the idiocy of letting public higher education fail in this country through lack of state funding – I’m sure you can see that for yourselves wherever you live. Instead, I want to point out an effort to gather the remnant state forces to have a national impact.
This year I’ve become associated with eXtension (a national group of Extension personnel) in the Community Horticulture Community of Practice. This is a fledgling effort to construct a national web presence containing relevant, current, science-based information on all things horticultural. If you check out the link above, you can click on Garden Myths, where you’ll find information from…Jeff Gillman and myself.
It’s going to take a long time to get this web resource organized and populated with good information – but it’s a start. If you, or someone you know, is interested in helping, be sure to post a comment or email Karen Jeannette, our intrepid coordinator in Minnesota. (I can provide her email if you are interested.)
Not your father’s extension service
We recently received a question on one of my old posts (Dec. 12, 2009) from a blog reader in Iran (yes, Iran) regarding agricultural extension and asking what’s new in how we disseminate science-based information. There’s no doubt that things have evolved in agricultrual extension over the years. There’s an old joke: Guy walks into a county extension office and the agent is sitting behind his desk, crying. The visitor asks, “What’s the matter?” Agent replies, “My farmer died.”
Hey, I said it was an old joke, I didn’t say it was a funny one. Point is, the days of field extension agents or campus-based extension personnel going out and holding a farmer’s hand are long gone. While some may still think of dim-witted Hank Kimball on “Green Acres” when they think of extension (go to http://www.hulu.com/watch/140842/green-acres-my-husband-the-rooster-renter if you miss the reference), most university extension is going increasingly high tech. I’m sure each on my colleagues can provide several examples of recent extension innovations in there area. I’ll provide one that we have just launched here at Michigan State.
Obviously the single biggest tool we have for outreach and extension is the internet. Recently, Dr. Pascal Nzokou, one of the lead members of our Christmas tree extension team launched the MSU Christmas Tree Channel on youtube http://www.youtube.com/user/MSUChristmasTrees
On the Christmas tree channel members of our extension team provide short (1 ½ – 4 minute) videos on various aspects of production: site selection, species selection, pest management, irrigation, nutrition.
There are several advantages of using youtube for these types of videos. First, uploading the videos is easy and straightforward. We had a professional shoot the videos and do the editing but anyone with a digital video camera can shoot videos and load them on to youtube. For short videos it’s easy to upload videos for viewing even at HD resolution eliminating the ‘Invisibale Gardener expereince’. Once the video is loaded you can send the link out to people you think will be interested or include the link on your website. People may also find your video using the search feature depending on the information you include in the description. Lastly, most people that use the web regularly are used to searching and viewing on youtube so there’s high consumer acceptance.
Published: 11/22/2010 2:21 PM
BlogTitleForUrl: not-your-father’s-extensio
DMSO
A few months ago I was interviewed for an article where they asked me whether I thought that a deer repellant which was taken up into a tree would be a good idea. I said sure, great idea. It would last a long time — something that most repellants currently don’t. Well, I just saw the article and I must say that I’m not so sure that it’s a great idea any more.
It seems that the repellant that they’re talking about is basically a combination of hot peppers and DMSO. The hot peppers have been around for a long time. The DMSO not so long — just a few decades really (though there is very small quantity of naturally occurring DMSO in fruits) but DMSO has some properties that concern me. When I was younger I was a competitive runner and I recall certain other runners using DMSO as a treatment for aches and pains. I also remember a run-down house along one of my regular runs selling the stuff via a cardboard sign on the porch. Looked kinda shady. I haven’t seen much DMSO around recently, maybe because it isn’t legal everywhere — at least as far as I can tell.
DMSO is a solvent which crosses membranes, such as skin, very easily. Apparently, if you use it anywhere on your body, it will make your breath garlicy. In terms of toxicity — it isn’t considered very toxic. However, it has the ability to dissolve things, such as poisons (the insecticide imidacloprid for example), and anything which it dissolves can then cross the skin barrier very rapidly right along with the DMSO.
So to me this is a little worrying. I don’t have much experience with DMSO, and I don’t have a problem with professional pesticide applicators who have the proper equipment applying DMSO, but I can’t help but wonder whether this stuff might be just a little too tempermental for the average homeowner to use. Apparently the EPA has it now. Here’s hoping that they’ll make the right decision, whatever that is.
Pesticides and Wildlife
If you follow this blog then you know that I write a lot about pesticides. They’re something that I enjoy reading about and studying. For whatever reason, I find them fascinating. That said, they can be some of the worst things for wildlife. But there are pesticides that are more “wildlife compatible” than others, so today I’m going to cover some of the worst pesticides that you can use in terms of wildlife, and some of the pesticides that might be more acceptable (though far from perfect).
First, here’s a brief rundown of pesticides that have been some of the worst wildlife offenders over the years. Fortunately most of these are gone.
1. DDT – long gone (though I know people who still have old bottles locked up in chemical cabinets here and there). Modern evidence points to it not being as bad for human health (cancer) as many made it out to be, but it was a mess in terms of environmental effects — it built up in the environment (it is stored in the body and is not rapidly excreted — in large part because it isn’t water soluble — so when a predatory bird ate a small mammal who had DDT on (or in) it, all of that DDT would stay in the bird — and the DDT from the next mammal it ate, and so on — this is called biomagnification) and resulted in predatory birds producing thin-shelled, barely viable eggs. Another problem with DDT was that it lingered for a long time — it doesn’t break down quickly. It had other problems too – but the biomagnification and persistence issues were the most obvious and, at least to me, the scariest.
2. Endrin – Relatively closely related to DDT, but a lot more toxic to a lot more animals and so a lot scarier. Once upon a time this stuff was used to all but sterilize fields. Toxic to everything that moves, and, like DDT, it built up in the environment. This stuff was (fortunately) never really used by homeowners.
3. Temik (aldicarb) – Nasty, nasty, nasty. EXTREMELY high acute toxicity, AND it’s water soluble. A pesticide which I have had to use in the past. Apply it to a tree (I was working with pecans when I used it) and that tree’s foliage would be free of any insects. And, amazingly, the stuff didn’t translocate to fruits and veggies – if it weren’t so darn toxic to things besides insects it would have been a great insecticide – some people still consider it a great insecticide. This stuff was known for its misuse. Apply it near a weed which deer eat and that weed would absorb the pesticide and poof! No more deer. Agonizing death too. Wolves and coyotes could be poisoned with just a little bit of tainted deer meat. This stuff wasn’t supposed to be used by homeowners, but, again, it is known as much for its misuse as its use.
Fortunately most of those over-the-top killers are gone or on their way out. Still, in your garden you do have the opportunity to use some poisons which it would be best for you to avoid if you’re interested in saving/protecting wildlife. These poisons are called “broad-spectrum” poisons and they are preferred by many because they kill so many different types of pests. Unfortunately being able to kill many kinds of pests usually also means that they’re able to kill many types of good creatures. Many pesticticides such as sevin (carbaryl), pyrethrin, orthene (acephate), and sulfur are broad spectrum poisons that you should avoid, but here are some that, if you want to conserve wildlife, you should be especially wary of.
1. Permethrin – This is probably the most used broad spectrum insecticide used around gardens today. It will kill just about any insect which it touches and it lasts for about 10 days. It is certainly effective, but it shouldn’t be used by anyone who wants to encourage insects or the birds who eat insects in their gardens.
2. Metaldehyde – This is a very effective slug poison. It is both attractive and deadly to dogs and cats, and is thought to affect birds and small mammals as well though there aren’t as many documented cases of wildlife poisoning as there are of domesticated pets being poisoned.
3. Copper sulfate (Bordeaux mix) – This is an organic fungicide that is often overapplied because it is considered safe. It can limit the plants which grow in an area, and it is extremely toxic to aquatics – keep it away from water. Finally – copper doesn’t break down – as you use it over the years it will build up in your soil – so try to stay away from it.
And finally, here are some which, if they are used properly, are less likely to affect wildlife.
1. Kaolin clay – it’s not popular, but it’s out there if you look for it. This is a type of clay which it sprayed onto plants to protect them from insects. It tends to work pretty well (it’s not perfect), but it has minimal effect on wildlife.
2. Insecticidal soap – It will kill some insects that you don’t want to kill, but it’s a heck of a lot better than permethrin. It is unlikely to hurt mammals or birds.
3. Roundup – The controversial part of me wrote this. Roundup has been implicated as doing all kinds of things to aquatic organisms, but, if it is only sprayed on the leaves of the plant you want to kill, it is not going to cause any significant environmental damage (besides removing a plant that wildlife may want for food).
Want more bird visitors? Nonnative plants may be the answer
We’ve posted before about the native vs. nonnative conundrum, especially as it relates to invasive species. So let’s complicate the issue a bit more by considering how birds are affected by our landscape choices.
About 10 years ago my UW colleague Sarah Reichard and I collaborated on a literature review on the interaction between birds and non-native plants. While we know that invasive plants can displace native plants and create less biodiverse environments, the resulting impact on species like birds is not so cut and dried. And what about noninvasive, nonnative plant species? How do they affect bird populations? Here are some of the practical bits of information that we found:
1) Nonnative shrubs and trees are often chosen for their brightly colored fruits, especially those that produce them in a different season than native plants. Winter color is highly valued by gardeners.
2) Frugivorous birds (those that eat fruit) generally benefit from the introduction of fruiting species as an additional food source, even if the species is invasive.
3) Birds tend to prefer fruits that are red and/or black, or that have red arils or pseudoarils.
4) Birds tend to prefer fruits that offer the most pulp; interestingly, highly invasive plants species tend to have larger fruit displays and therefore higher bird usage than less invasive relatives.
5) Additional food sources can allow frugivorous and omnivorous birds to expand their ranges and/or their breeding seasons.
6) Nonnative shrubs and trees with structural features such as thorns and spikes can provide protection to small birds from predators.
It’s clear that birds are highly adaptive and will quickly learn to utilize new food resources – and in doing so, may contribute to their spread through seed dispersal. It’s enough to make your head spin.
Here’s what I recommend for choosing bird-friendly trees, shrubs and vines:
1) Use native species first if they are adaptable to your site conditions. (Note: many native species, especially those of forested environments, don’t like urban conditions.)
2) Be sure to provide structural diversity in your landscapes – groundcovers, small dense shrubs, larger open shrubs and small trees, big trees, and vines – to provide shelter and nesting habitat.
3) Before choosing nonnative species, check the web for information on invasiveness. The USDA Plants Database (http://plants.usda.gov/) has information on invasive species. If it’s invasive, please don’t plant it!
4) Birds see best in the red end of the color spectrum, so select plants with fruits and flowers that will attract them.
The Garden Professors Go Wild!
It’s ‘Wildlife week’ on the Garden Professors. One of the most common questions that we get when speaking to garden groups is, “What can I do around my home to promote wildlife?” My stock answer used to be, “Throw a party!”, but only a handful of people ever got it so I’ve backed off of that one. Anyway, since the subject of gardening and wildlife comes up so often we’ve decided to dedicate a week to the topic.
Questions about wildlife (the animal kind) always take me back to my undergraduate forestry days at Washington State University and Dr. Zamora’s Wildlife Management course. Even though I’ve always been more of a plant person than and an animal person, I found this to be a fascinating course. In fact, assembling the winter browse twig ID collection was one of my proudest undergraduate achievements. Doesn’t seem like much; but try wandering the Palouse hills in the dead of winter and see if you can indentify 50 browse species without the benefit of leaves, you’d be proud too! In addtion to a notebook full of mounted twigs and a mild case of frostbite, I took away from the course several key principles of wildlife management that have stayed with me over the years.
What do wildlife need? In general, all wildlife need four basic elements: food, cover, water, and space. The specific types and amounts of these elements, of course, will depend on the type of wildlife you wish at attract. Homeowners can provide or enhance these elements through plants or through other, non-living means. Important non-living components include feeders, bird-baths or other water features, piles of rocks or sticks (provide cover for small animals), salt, and standing or fallen dead trees (provide habitat for cavity-nesting birds and mammals). Plants can provide both food and cover. Important plant components in designing for wildlife include evergreen conifers for cover, summer fruits and berries, fall fruits and seeds, winter fruits and seeds, flowers that provide nectar, and trees that provide nuts and acorns.
At this point the questions often turn to the importance natives versus exotics. In light of Doug Tallamy’s book, Bringing Nature Home, many people assume that only native plants can serve these functions. But there are several factors to consider here. First, Tallamy’s discussion is largely focused on co-evolutionary relationships between native plants and native insects, and even here some of the reasoning is stretched thin (see Linda’s Feb. 12 post). There is more to supporting wildlife on a broad scale than insect/herbivore interactions. Non-invasive exotic conifers, for example, can certainly contribute winter cover, vertical structure, and edge effects. And, while some animals have evolved very specific diets (think koalas and eucalyptus), many herbivores are generalists and in some cases even prefer to feed on exotics. So, in thinking about wildlife it’s important to consider function and providing the elements animals need than to simply fixate on whether plants are native or exotic. This is especially true on tough, disturbed sites where natives may be poorly adapted and unable to survive. Habitat provided by an exotic will be preferable to no habitat at all.
Lastly, another factor to consider is whether attracting wildlife around your home is always a good idea. Along with the wildlife we’d like to see, improving habitat may increase the likelihood of running into critters (skunks, raccoons, possums) that we’d rather not encounter on the way to take the trash out late at night. Also, in many parts of the country, people and their pets are encountering large predators such as cougars and bears with increasing frequency. Obviously a lot of this is due to human encroachment into the predators’ habitat, but it may be prudent to consider a ‘defensible space’ strategy as we do for wildfires. Keep the elements that are likely to attract larger animals a safe distance from the house. Stay tuned for more as ‘Wildlife week continues’.
NOTE: Thanks to my high school choir-mate and college soccer team-mate, Tim Schlender for the timely wildlife habitat cartoon.
Big Trees for Crime Reduction
Like Linda, I believe that we don’t plant enough bare-root trees. Trees that are harvested and sold bare root tend to establish better and recover faster from transplant shock than trees sold in containers or as B&B (balled and burlapped) stock. But, in general, trees that are purchased in as bare-root stock are smaller than the other two styles, with B&B generally being the production method which yields the largest trees.
I disagree with Linda that, as a general rule, B&B stock should have its roots washed off prior to transplanting — I’ve done it and I’ve lost trees. Most of the B&B trees that I know of where root washing has been successful have been small, relatively easily transplanted stock. Once we have a few nice, big, long term studies that shows that B&B trees with their roots washed perform comparably to, or better than, normal B&B trees I’ll start to believe. (I will note that, as a rule, it looks like B&B stock is dug and cared for much better here in Minnesota than Washington!)
I’m not going to go into the nuances of the arguments here — we’ve done it before if you want to check the archives. But what I am going to point out is that a new study in Oregon has shown that bigger trees might help to deter crime. Yet another reason for the people of this country to demand larger stock.
Despite what all of the research shows (that it’s better to plant smaller trees — preferably bare-root) people want big trees — they want an instant landscape. They want it because to them it looks nice — and now its a way to protect your family too.
Historically this big stock comes B&B and is very expensive, cumbersome, and not the easiest things to successfully plant. We need a new, cheaper way to grow large stock. A number of researchers are working on different methods to produce large stock (special containers, bare root from a gravel bed) but nothing has worked out perfectly yet. It’s going to be interesting to see how all of this shakes out in the future — especially with the loss of ash trees in the Midwest.
What’s In A Name
Marketing is important if you want to sell something, but I have always been amazed at the different names that chemical companies have come up with for pesticides. Way back when, in the early 1900s and late 1800s insecticides were given soft, gentile names. Paris Green, London Purple, Bordeaux mix – really beautiful names that hint of worldly knowledge (for the most part they just indicate where the product was originally produced). In the mid-1900s names were more matter of fact: DDT, 2,4 D, 2,4,5 T — These names were indicative of the chemistry of the product being sold. Then professional marketers got a hold of pesticides and the fun started. If you’ve never farmed then you may never have seen some of these names, but to a farmer who uses commercial pesticides many of these names will sound familiar. My favorite name for a pesticide is Scythe. I don’t know why, it just strikes me as amusing that a chemical is being compared to a hand tool. Maybe Shovel, Rake, or Tweezers is next.
Here are a few names for various insecticides which include the same active ingredient, cypermethrin – a relatively dangerous insecticide — along with some of the emotions which you may feel while considering what insecticide to buy – in other words, feelings that marketers may use to drive you to select one product rather than another:
If you feel like attacking the insects: Ammo
If you’re feeling like the insects are closing in on you: Barricade
If you’re feeling like insects are closing in on you AND you’re a Civil War buff: Stockade
If you’re feeling like bailing out of the farming business altogether: Ripcord
If you want a pesticide that sounds safer than it is: Super
If you feel tough because you just watched the governor of California in an ‘80s sci fi flick: Cymperator
If you’re feeling mad as hell at those nasty insects: Demon
Okay – all of these products aren’t used for the same things, but dang….how many names can you have for one active ingredient?
Oh Deer! Part 2
Last week Holly and I extolled the virtues of our dogs for helping to keep our gardens and landscapes relatively deer-free even though we live in areas with high deer pressure. Of course, letting dogs roam your property is not an option for everyone. So what are some other options to keep deer from turning your garden into a salad buffet?
My former grad student, Sara Tanis, shows off deer damage at her parent’s place near Ludington, MI
One of the most popular non-canine deer remedies is applying various deer repellants. Typically I’ve been pretty skeptical of deer repellants. Trying to stop hungry deer from chowing down on your garden is like trying to stop a high school football team from devouring an all-you-can-eat pizza buffet. Recently, however, I saw some results from some colleagues at North Carolina State University on the effectiveness of various deer repellents in Christmas tree plantations that looked promising. Deer damage is a major issue in Christmas trees; deer browse pressure can be very high on conifers since they may be the most palatable thing available to deer in the winter. Research at NCSU and other studies (Wagner and Nolte 2001, Wildlife Soc. Bull.29:322-330) indicate that repellants that contain putrescent egg solids or animal protein can be effective at reducing deer damage. Of course, no repellant is 100% effective. If they’re hungry enough and don’t have an alternative, deer will likely overcome their fear of these scents and still come in for a nibble. Also repellants need to be re-applied periodically to be effective. Nevertheless, for gardener’s at their wit’s end and ready to resort to high velocity lead, repellants may be a better alternative. Although Sara says lead works too!
