Serenade is a good alternative to copper or sulfur, and far less harmful. That's the one I would recommend. Is clay effective against apple maggots? I am thinking of trying it our for drysophilus. Drysophilus damage looks very similar to apple maggot, except that the maggots don't get very far into the apple.

I understand the the negative attitude towards strong poisons like Imidan, but what is it that makes you folks so adverse to something like myclobutanyl? Never heard of it hurting a soul. Why is an agriculturally used synthetic automatically considered dangerous no matter what it is?

"Why is an agriculturally used synthetic automatically considered dangerous no matter what it is?"

That's where I'm at.
Why is spraying Pyrethrum every 3 days OK but Triazicide every 14 days bad?
If it was on a tree next to my fishing pond I pick the one that sticks better and requires less spraying.

Eskota, that U Michigan schedule is about worthless, its ten years out of date. I have primarily been using Sulphur/Serenade for diseases (plus copper dormant spray). Serenade is weak but if you use it in about every spray you get some impact. I don't have many years experience with it so this is just my preliminary conclusion. For curculio a consistent coast of Surround from petal fall to dime-sized fruit is the ticket. For Codling moth I use mating disruption lures plus spinosad every few weeks and am going to also throw in codling moth virus this year. You don't get 100% clean fruit but it works well enough for me, with most fruit clean.

I'm a little tired of the organic vs not debate but I will say many of the organic things are pretty nasty, e.g. rotenone. I don't use pyrethrum either. On the other hand some of the synthetics are even more nasty. The main problem with the synthetics is the unknown -- which ones, if any, are hurting the honey bees bees now? Nobody knows. Organics can also do really nasty things, but with much lower odds.

Scott

Hi Scott. I'm not taking sides here, just trying to provide info for those interested in organic methods.

"22. What is the active ingredient in Serenade Garden?

Serenade Garden is made from a strain of a naturally occurring microbe called Bacillus subtilis. Farmers have used this biological pesticide for years to treat plant diseases in food crops. Bacillus subtilis penetrates and destroys the disease spores, but does not harm any beneficial insects or wildlife. This ingredient is also approved by the EPA & USDA's National Organic Program (NOP), and is listed by the Organic Materials Review Institute (OMRI) for use in organic gardening."

Here is a link that might be useful: Serenade FAQ

How do reckon the odds are lower? Many of the new organic materials are just as foreign to the environment to which they are applied. How have our bodies developed resistance to something like the ingredients in Spinosad?

I'm just trying to get into the logic of rejecting all synthetic materials instead of using all materials at our disposal to create less damage to our environment. What do you think all those applications of sulfur are doing to the biology of your soil?

OK, I won't bother this thread anymore. It just makes me a little crazy when I think of people willing to do 15 sprays to accomplish what can be done in 3. If it was called low-toxic gardening I'd be right there, but this organic thing is beginning to make me a little nuts.

There are huge risks in taking a lot of the new pharmaceuticals that dwarf the risk of applying a few sprays but there is no mass movement to organic health care to treat serious diseases.

"Surround kaolin clay spray has given organic orchardists an effective tool for an array of petal fall pests that destroy fruit when it's the size of a marble..."

Here is a link that might be useful: Surround

You have to judge for yourself whether organic is better than conventional. It takes more work, uses different materials.

Here is a link that might be useful: Sinosad

I have been using Surround for 5 years and it works pretty well in a home orchard situation. I am expanding my organic efforts in my business because it is what people want but no one wants to pay for 20 spray applications so I'm also trying to find out if I can get some benefit by mixing Serenade and Biotune with my 4 weekly Surround applications that begin at petal fall.

I'm considering including sulfur with this as well but then I can't add summer oil to the mix, which helps lessen the mite and scale issues that tend to become big problems once you cover your trees with Surround. Many beneficials hate Surround apparently and it is by no means species specific in it repellence.

I get exasperated with how difficult this all becomes, I admit it, but I still will be attempting to make things work with as little input as possible. As long as some of my customers insist on organic I will be acquiring some hands-on information that should be useful to those of you who embrace the organic idea.

Hman, I have been using Serenade with my Surround apps for the past few years. The main reason I have been doing it is for fireblight, but it also helps on other diseases. The main problem is it is very weak stuff so you need regular coverage and rain events are not your friend at all. I don't yet have a clear picture overall of how effective it is.

My guess is you will need to do 2-3 times the sprays and get half the quality of fruit out the back door in comparison to your non-organic routine. So, just charge 'em triple. Maybe that will help you "$ee the light" on the whole organic movement :-)

For your question of why nature-produced chemicals are generally not as dangerous, this is a well-known fact in chemistry. Natural chemical compounds have very limited synthesis paths: nearly all reactions are in aqueous solution, there is no distillation, temperature tends to be fixed at some value the organism didn't choose, no distillation, no centrifuge, etc etc etc. And, the new chemicals produced by these natural paths have been integrated into the whole system over the millenia so there are protections from the ones that can be bad. The modern chemicals built by new pathways throw a wrench into this system. Even the natural ones can throw a wrench in since they are concentrated beyond normal levels to produce the modern bio-organic chemicals, but the "natural synthesis" limit puts some upper bound on how hard the impact is. Maybe some day there will be a better bound than natural vs not, it is somewhat arbitrary and not completely accurate.

Scott

"For your question of why nature-produced chemicals are generally not as dangerous,"

I think it was why they are perceived as being less dangerous.
If your dog reacts poorly to taking spinosad I'm betting you'll find it very dangerous.
How about Black Leaf 40? I remember "organic" recipes to make that at home. Want your kids to do some shots of that?

I'm fairly sure the spray they use IN bee hives is chemical.

Mykl, they are perceived as less dangerous because they are less dangerous, on average. Plenty of organic chemicals are dangerous and I never argued otherwise, all I stated was they are quite a bit less dangerous than synthetic ones on average. If my dog was munching on Imidan he's a dead dog; if he was munching on the spinosad I'd get him to the vet pronto but expect he would be OK.

Scott

Comfortis is a spinosad pill for flea control.
If he reacted poorly to it I bet the vet bill would convince you it's not safe. If he ate too much he'd likely be as dead as eating any other poison. You only perceive it as being safer because it's natural.

It's all about time, place, impact and need. Either dismissing "chemical" out of hand or accepting "organic" whole hog is extremism and extremism is rarely best.

Chemicals are chemicals. Whether they're made in nature or have a molecule moved around in a lab doesn't dictate whether or not they're safer.
Permethrin or Pyrethrum are pretty much the same. The synthetic versions require less spraying and may be more targeted. Six of one, half dozen of the other.

Mykl, the LD50 on spinosad is very high, I think salt has a lower LD50 than spinosad. I perceive it as being safer because I researched it and I know it. I perceive pyrethrum as unsafe even though it is 100% organic because I researched it and didn't like what I found, and I don't use it. If I didn't research it, then on average the synthetic is going to be more toxic than the natural.

I agree some people are knee-jerk one way or the other and thats not good. The organic food standards tend to propagate that now since they use the natural vs not as the main divider. It isn't the only divider in the standard however, there are quite a few natural compounds that are not allowed by that standard. I think the old arsenate of lead sprays of yore were not synthetic, but I seriously doubt you will get a USDA Organic stamp on your fruit if you use it!

Scott

Instead of looking at tests centered around spraying spinosad you need to research real world instances of people having adverse reactions giving it to their dogs.
The lab tests for Comfortis don't mention major problems either, but it was also a small test.
Here is real world from Gardenweb (but those who had good results really like it),

" I gave my Boston Terrier and two Boxers comfortis and it worked like a dream.....at first. The first dosage resulted in a little bit of vomiting. The vet figured she had a touchy stomach since vomitting is a side effect. I wasn't terribly worried so I bought the second dose. That is when the nightmare began. Within two weeks Sassy (the Boston Terrier) stopped eating, became lethargic and was vomiting profusely. The vomit started out clear, then turned to yellow, and then pink. I immediately took her to the vet and they said she had blood in her vomit. The admitted her and ran blood work. Her pancreatic enzymes had tripled. They had no idea what caused it since there had been no change in her diet. I racked my brain trying to figure out what might have caused the attack. They did emergency exploratory surgery to make sure that an intestinal blockage was not the source of irritation. They found no blockages but they did say that her pancreas was the most angry and swollen pancreas they had seen in their entire careers. Typically dogs who present with that kind of severity have a history of pancreatitus. Sassy has no history of this whatsoever.

While I was at the vet office visiting my still gravely ill dog I asked them if the Comfortis might have been the cause. The vet said she doubted it but would research it. She came back and told me that she could not eliminate the Comfortis as a cause since the group studied was so small. Additionally, because the study group reported no cases of death it was immediately labeled as safe despite the fact that there are NO studies that have been dedicated to the long term affects or the adverse reactions in a larger study pool. I was shocked to find out that the safety standards used to measure pet products safety is substandard at best. I have spent almost $800 dollars trying to save my dogs life. The more I research this product the more I am finding cases of adverse reactions similar to Sassy's.

Here is my caution to anyone who wants to try this (because it does work for some dogs) be very careful. Don't assume that because your dog took it a few days ago with little or no reaction that you are out of the woods. The Freedom Information Act on this drug states that adverse reactions can occur as late as 7-14 days after administering the drug. If your dog starts to vomit and it turns pink get your dog to the hospital immediately and have them run a pancreatic enzyme level test, it could very well save your dog's life. My dog isn't out of the woods yet but she is slowly getting better. I know Frontline is pretty much useless but it does offer some protection and it's better than risking another adverse reaction."

"My 7 year old Chihuahua almost died from this drug. He started foaming at the mouth, then went stiff as a board. I thought he was dead. It took about 10 minutes of my Husband holding him up until he could stand. Since then he has not been eating or drinking water. The Vet ran bloodwork on him, refused my payment for tests. Stated he was contacting the drug company with my complaint. Beware people. This was a terrible experience, not only for my beloved pet, but for his owners who love him so!"

Sound like something you want to test on a kid?

Mykl, you are right that I would not want my kid eating spinosad just like I would not want him to eat any other chemical, synthetic or not, in my orchard spray cabinet. I have never heard of this dog treatment and this is not very relevant to the current topic which is on spraying not eating.

In any case, heres another way to look at it: the natural chemical spinosad is so safe that it managed to get adopted as something to ingest to treat a condition, and some people swear by it for that purpose! Simply unbelievable that a toxic compound could actually be approved for that! Try that out with imidan instead of spinosad and you'll come up with a dead dog every time.

Scott

This will probably be my only post on this thread, but I'll offer a few things.

A dog would not automatically be dead if it ingested Imidan. Remember, as late as 2004 Imidan was used in powder form as a dog treatment. Having powdered many dogs (with carbaryl) I can attest they immediately start licking the powder off, so I'm pretty sure a dog would not die ingesting a small amount of Imidan. With Imidan, carbaryl, spinosad, or any other pesticide, it depends on the quantity of the pesticide ingested. I'm not saying Imidan is as safe as spinosad at the same % active ingredient, just that Imidan was approved for pets and won't automatically kill your dog.

I don't follow assumption that an organic poison is generally safer because it was produced by nature w/o distillation, etc., over millenia. That this produces an upper limit on how hard the impact is, simply isn't born out in nature. We can all think of the poison tree frog for example, which secretes one of the most toxic substances found. A child handling one would likely die. I don't see that as much of an upper bound.

Scott, I know that is just one example, and you said "generally", but that example demonstrates nature does not automatically produce an upper bound. My point is, if we can't trust nature in some cases, how are we to know if we can trust her in others?

Likewise, the application that nature's poisons deserve more trust because they have been around longer and therefore have less unknowns seems to me a conjecture and would be difficult to prove. As you are aware, the recent discussions on the possible chronic toxicity of cherimoyas highlights that a fruit which has been consumed for millennia could still have chronic toxic effects at high doses. Nature just doesn't seem to be a good filter to determine relative safety. For better or worse, the best method to determine safety for both synthetic and organic chemicals is to rely on modern laboratory testing. Granted it's not foolproof, but it's the best we've got.

Lastly, some of the newer synthetic chemicals are very safe, even being so selective they are lethal only to the class of insects they are targeting, and are completely harmless to other insects like bees (I'm talking about some of the insect growth regulators here.) However, these chemicals are completely dismissed by the organic movement simply because they are synthetic.

I thought this thread was about organic spray schedules. Why are you guys trying to promote synthetic sprays here? I am very interested in what works from an organic perspective. I am a little tired of the synthetic spray propaganda, we all know synthetic sprays work very well. So for those of us who like to take up the challenge of doing this without synthetics, it would be more useful to learn about what organic sprays actually work.

Scott, thanks for the warning about Serenade. Did you tank mix it with Biotune? Apparently this is considered essential to get efficacy and I've seen research that indicated this combination is much more affective controlling scab and CAR then what you indicate. The link is on the topic asking for help on 70 apple trees inherited.

After reading your explanation of why natural compounds are safer I must say it sounds built on sand. Aids was created naturally- totally organic, and it was just spit out of nature's laboratory a couple of decades ago.

I wonder why you are so concerned about the relative safety of synthetics in agriculture? We are surrounded by so many other greater dangers and risks.

I personally think it is a kind of fetish based on the fact that we put food in our mouths. It's wired in our DNA to be very concerned about poisoning ourselves through oral entry. It seems that all the other more concentrated sources of synthetic compounds tends to be largely overlooked until the consequences are screaming at us- you know, like car exhaust in city air, which has much more data based information of health consequences than properly used pesticides.

"Try that out with imidan instead of spinosad and you'll come up with a dead dog every time."

Actually it was used to spray on dogs (and as Olpea said, they lick it off). As far as I know it's still used on livestock.
Why it's pertinent is because it's showing there's a perception that organic means safe and chemical means death.

"I thought this thread was about organic spray schedules. Why are you guys trying to promote synthetic sprays here? I am very interested in what works from an organic perspective. I am a little tired of the synthetic spray propaganda"

That's the way conversations work. There's a whole forum dedicated to organics if you don't want any other talk.

Since there is a problem with curculio with many of these fruits the answer is simple. There is no organic control other than barriers. Even Organic Gardening admits that.

Hman I will have to look up the Biotune discussion, thanks.

I'm out of steam on this debate, my point is obviously not getting across. Just let me say I'm not knee-jerk opposed to synthetics, I am strongly in favor of lab testing as opposed to looking at whether it is natural or synthetic, and as I already mentioned several times, natures chemicals can indeed be extremely poisonous. My point is about about the unforseen consequences of new chemical pathways which, other things being equal, make synthetics more risky than naturals and should put a higher bar on their adoption. The same argument applies to genetically engineered organisms, and even the strongest supporters of genetic engineering argue for much more thorough testing before introduction, so I don't see what is out of whack about a higher bar for synthetics.

Scott

The synthetic spray users sound very defensive, not sure why. If you really think what you use is safe, then great. But I still want to hear from the organic growers out there and it would be nice if they didn't get drowned out by pro synthetics propaganda. I am not in either camp but I know enough about the synthetics and would like to learn more about the organic approach. Organic is obviously harder and takes more dedication, hence it deserves more bandwidth.

So please, give organic growers a chance to present their knowledge without fear of getting hammered and ridiculized.

Harvestman, I went to the 72 trees thread to look up biotone and can't find anything other than your one mention in passing. That Cornell organic apple guide didn't have anything when I searched it, either - ? The only "Biotone" I can find via Googla is Epsoma Bio-Tone fertilizer which looks like a fertilizer not a spray.

Scott

Axel, there is a term we should all know and be aware that we are all prone to, it is motivated reasoning.

People tend to justify what they feel, their emotional response, with a logical explanation. We also tend to find the logic in arguments that endorse our emotions. I could just as well describe the organic endorsers as being defensive but it isn't very helpful. I think we are all equally sincere here in expressing our beliefs and we are all equally susceptable to rationalization.

I am interested in pursuing techniques for succesful organic fruit production but I'm also interested in putting an end to this kind of arbitrary orthodoxy. I believe that there are very safe synthetics and so does Scott- except in agriculture. I bet he wears some polyester once in a while or nylon and his body takes in these chemicals as it rubs against his skin. What if that nylon could be distilled into an affective insecticide? It would be unsafe? It couldn't be used by an organic producer, that's for sure.

I also believe that organic pesticides tend to be safer than synthetic ones, but I don't believe they are always best for the environment and sometimes it seems that their efficacy matches their relative toxicity. I also believe that synthetics are becomming safer and softer.

I am a fierce environmentalist as far as I'm concerned, and believe we need rational thinking to steer agriculture to more sustainable practices and that a dogma that prohibits the use of modern chemistry in the production of food is unethical, illogical, and ultimately not a sustainable model. Am I right or am I just engaging in motivated reasoning? Let's just see what happens in the next 20 years.

I don't think effective organic is denied any bandwidth. Search the forum for bagging, the clay spray and disease resistant trees and see how many hits you get.

What is not allowed to be said without any rebuttal is something like a suggestion to spray pyrethrum for Apple Maggot.
First, pyrethroids are not very effective on Apple Maggots.
Second, pyrethrum doesn't stick around so for it to be effective you need a constant spray. That constant spray is more damaging than the synthetics.

Should we allow someone to suggest people make tobacco tea and spray that. It used to be organic and it is effective. It's also homemade Black Leaf, extremely poisonous and is no longer considered "organic".

The highly effective organic controls are very welcome. The ineffective and nonsensical controls are going to have to stand up to "peer review".

http://www.ipmcenters.org/IPMSymposiumV/posters/068.pdf

Scott, is this the one you checked out, because Biotune was used as a surfactant with Serenade in at least some of the studies. I had previously read a bulletin submitted by UMass about the importance of combining Biotune with Serenade to inhance efficacy so I'm thinking it should make a substantial difference. For both of our sakes, I hope so.

I think it's very appropriate to point out what works and what doesn't, and to point out where frequency might be harmful. I don't have any issues with any of that. It's the generalized "organic" versus "synthetic" debate about what is safer that isn't going to get us anywhere.

Getting back to organics, I am curious, CAR is a fungus, why would it not respond to the same organic fungicides that scab responds to?

For apple maggot, do the red sticky traps work at all? What is the recommended organic approach?

Finally, is koalin spray the only recourse for PC? Or are there other approaches?

I'd appreciate some responses, I am not an organic gardener, but would like to use more organic approaches.

But since there are some avid synthetic fans, what is the least harmful synthetic to use against apple maggot. What data suggests it's safe, and how often do you have to spray?

I hate this forum software. Lost another post because of the preview.

In a nutshell.

Red spheres work great on apple maggot. That was all I used when I was organic. I think there may be a pheromone you can add to the trap for organic.

As far as I know barriers are the only organic curculio control.

I spray Malathion for apple maggot. Once a week depending on what my traps are showing. But with my neighbor's ignored tree I can't get anything under control so I'm assured of having to keep protection on during peak times.
Malathion works for my flies but Jellyman says it doesn't work on his. My flies did have many years of organic so maybe they're wimpy :)

Axel, I don't know much about chemistry, but just becasue a certain fungicide works for one species of fungus doesn't assure it will be affective against another. Even closely related fungicides that have the same mode of action vary from pest to pest. Myclobutanyl works great against scab and CAR but is poor against brown rot. Indar (don't know the chemical name) is in the same class- also an SI fungicide, but it's the only SI used against brown rot affectively.

I am curious about the fungicidal (specifically CAR) attributes of Stylet oil as brought to my attention by the Serenade studies you gave us the link for. I'm wondering if and expecting that any horticultural oil would have the same ability.

The less toxic non-organic PC killer most endorsed right now is Avaunt, but unfortunately the manufacturer hasn't opted to get it labled for non-agricultural purposes, which means fruit growing not done for sale. It also doesn't have quite the sticking power of Imidan which is particularly problematic in our current wet cycle here. Or it may be that Imidan is affective at less than half strength of the label recommendations.

The reason I come down so hard on the organic philosophy is because of it's total embrace by mass media right now. When the first lady touts the white house vegetable garden as producing far more nutritious vegetables because they are being produced organically and this kind of thinkging becomes the unquestioned status quo it all begins to jar my logical compass. At least on this forum I can make an effort to get what I consider a little balance on this general discussion. Can't seem to have the same impact on the NY Times.

I admit that it isn't fair for me to bombard every thread that attempts to sort out best organic methods with my own contankerous opinions but at least I'll try to compensate with a few positive contributions.

Ah thanks harvestman I didn't read the fine print on that poster. I can't find any of my usual mail-order places stocking it so far but I will try to round some up -- I did find a description that said Biotune was designed for use explicitly with Serenade/Sonata.

I expect that any oil will have the same effect as Stylet oil. In fact usually other oils do better; its main advantage is it is super light and is the least phytotoxic oil. I am a big fan of Saf-T-Side oil now, it is an unusual gloppy stuff which seems to work better on some diseases due to the gloppiness. The combination of Saf-T-Side and Serenade kept me clear of brown rot on my stone fruits last year.

For my CAR this year I haven't yet decided whether to do Saf-T-Side and Serenade Max, or to do Nova. Maybe I'll do half and half and see how they compare.

Re: the organic philosophy, part of the original organic philosophy was to grow in good organic soil without much fertilizer added, and this does produce healthier, as in more good compounds in them, fruits. Unfortunately the standards say nothing other than not to use chemical ferts and many organic veggies I have had taste just as bland as the worst nonorganic ones. Many nonorganic veggies are good as well of course, you don't need to be organic to make good soil and ease up on the fert.

Scott

Well I couldn't find it anywhere and no suppliers knew about it so I called Agraquest and the tech guy said they are no longer selling Biotune and several people doing work with Serenade recently have found Nufilm-17 to be an excellent adjuvant for it so he recommends that. In fact the reports he had were similar to the biotune, there is clearly increased efficacy with it. So, I'm going to use my Nufilm on it; I usually use Nufilm in most sprays anyway but am not sure I was always using with Serenade. The guy at Seven Springs thought the Therm-X yucca stuff also worked very well with it.

Scott

Axel,

Cornell rates Entrust (spinosad) as fair against AM, however the label only rates it for suppression. It's OMRI listed, so that would be an organic option.

For a synthetic, Assail gets Cornell's top rating of good. It's probably the safest for the following rationale:

It's classified as reduced risk pesticide by the EPA. The EPA created a reduced risk initiative to encourage the development of low risk synthetics. Specifically in the words of the EPA:

"EPA gives priority in its registration program for conventional chemical pesticides to pesticides that meet reduced risk criteria: low-impact on human health, low toxicity to non-target organisms (birds, fish, and plants), low potential for groundwater contamination, lower use rates, low pest resistance potential, and compatibility with Integrated Pest Management."

Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) is also a gauge to the risk of a pesticide. Obviously, a more dangerous pesticide demands a higher degree of PPE. Assail doesn't even require goggles for applicators (which is very unusual).

Pre-harvest Interval can also be somewhat of a gauge to safety. Assail has a PHI of 7 days for apples (which is the same as Entrust).

Assail has a LD50 of I noticed Assail is also labeled for the new Light Brown Apple moth in CA. Hopefully, you guys will be able to eradicate that thing out there, otherwise it's going to kick your behind. I've read about it. It'll eat just about anything.

Scott, isn't Biotune a penetrant and not a spreader sticker? Better make sure you use Biotunes equivalent.

I think the advantage of organic vegetables is that conventional growers tend to juice things up with soluble N and create vegetables with very big cells full of water. Taste and nutrition suffers if you grow vegies or fruit this way because of the higher ratio of water.

I actually grow my vegetables organically once I get the starts out of the green house. I like synthetic fertilizer for starts. Vegetables are easy, though.

I just don't like this constant drum beat of healthy eating can only be accomplished with organic food. If I buy organic produce here it will cost anywhere from 2 to 4 times as much money so I don't think you should be discouraging people from eating healthy food they can actually afford.

Hman, the guy I talked to at Agraquest has the title something like Technical Expert so I don't know if we can get any better opinion, and his opinion was to use Nufilm.

I did find a place selling Biotune (old supply I guess) but decided if the company making it didn't think it was worth continuing that it wasn't worth me paying $50 for a gallon of it.

Scott

I seriously doubt that Agraquest has stopped making Biotune considering they're the manufacturers of Serenade and formulated Biotune specifically for use with Serenade. I just sent out an e-mail to the east coast sales rep for sources. Who was your source and why do you think Agraquest stopped manufacturing it? They only recently brought it out on the market from what I gather.

My source was Dennis Warkentin at Agraquest. He is one level up from a sales rep, he is a technical expert. I asked why it was discontinued but didn't get a good answer, he just said any good sticker will work. It came out in 2006 and seems to have been discontinued shortly after. Maybe too much paperwork for all the organic certifications on it.

Scott

That's really weird. Not that they didn't put it out there but that he recommends a spreader sticker. Why wouldn't a surfactant penetrant be recommended intstead? How would a spreader sticker do the same thing? Why did so many tests that they base the efficacy of their product on include the use of this specific product? UMASS specifically called for using them in tandem.

H-man: as a garden size "conventional" vegetable for decades, your comment about conventional growers "juicing things up" with N caught my attention. Perhaps many do, I don't know, I don't. As you know, you can over do it with N conventionally or organically, it is the person, not the N source. Many organic folks seem to think that they can do no wrong growing organically, I beg to differ.

Thanks for your writings previously as well as for those of Scott, Axel and others.

I really should check this but dinner is getting cold which makes my wife upset.

I use soluble nitrogen primarily for rapid establishment. Once a plant is plugged I tend to back off. Even for fruit the key is getting the N to the buds from flowering to a short period past petal fall once trees are established. The advantage of a quick release for fruit is getting the N in and out of the system to the advantage of fruit alone. Keep juicing the trees all season and you get too much vegetative growth and watery fruit.

Commercial growers often put urea in the spray mix at tight cluster to get the N where and when it is needed to serve the spur leaves. About a pound of actual nitrogen to 100 gallons is used. What would an organic grower use in place of urea?

Hman, seaweed is probably the most popular organic foliar fert for apples. I use it a lot myself.

Scott

Let's see, capturing an organic source of urea to spray on trees. Get your hen house set up so their poop falls immediately into cold water thereby negating the urea loss. Collect, filter and spray! Maybe I'll come up with a better idea later.

H-man: I vaguely remember a recipe for making a micronutrient solution for foliar application to crops using urea in the mix but don't remember if the urea was there solely for the N benefit or as a carrier for the micros., any thoughts?

Might help in the intake of the micros, don't know. I also vaguely remember that adding soluble N to glysphosphate improves intake. Too too tired to look that up.