Here's my take on the agricultural sulphur/ferrous sulphate and iron chelate. Agricultural or elemental sulphur will provide more acidifying power per pound of material applied, however the soil microbes have to convert it from the sulphur form to oxides of sulphur, which can then act to acidify the soil. It takes time for the acidification to work and it will occur over a period of time, you have to get the sulphur into the ground for the microbes to attack, and the effect will be a bit longer acting. The larger the sulphur particles you spread, the slower the process. Elemental sulphur is relatively cheap so is often used agriculturally. We generally use sulphur strictly as a fertilizer to replace what the crops are removing from the soil, being leached away, or tied up into mineralized compounds, plus it is relatively low volume. As a fertilizer, we often apply it at 30 lbs/acre. Another option is to use gypsum, calcium sulphate, which is commonly used to treat highly alkaline/saline soils as it is quite cheap, acidifying, and provides additional calcium. (In moister climates where soils are more acidic, they do the opposite, applying lime -- calcium carbonate-- to raise the pH). When applying gypsum, we would apply it on the order of 1000-2000 lbs/acre or more. With ferrous sulphate, you have moved up a step in cost but you are providing sulphate ions (or is it anions?) that will provide the acidifying effect, and because it is already converted to a soluble and ionic form, it will work quite quickly. At the same time, you are providing free iron that the plants can take up and the acidifying effect of the sulphate slows the process of tying the iron up in the soil. Many soils, particularly in alkaline areas, have plenty of iron, but it is tied up in the soil and unavailable to plants, and that is the situation here. We have a lot of red soils, the red coming from oxidized iron (rust). There is no deficiency of iron but it is mineralized and unavailable. Combine that with a pH of around 8 or higher and there are a lot of plants that will die of iron deficiency. Conifers, golden willows (lost a row of them in the cemetery to that, and nearly lost the spruce trees), petunias, raspberries, and even kentucky blue grass where the lawn is only sprinkler irrigated, for example. With iron chelate, you have a form of iron that is more available to plants, however it is relatively much more expensive. The chelate can be absorbed into the leaves if used as a foliar spray, though too strong a solution will burn. Because it can be pretty well directly absorbed by the plants, it can have an almost immediate effect on new growth. I've seen it recommended to water the ground with the iron chelate, but I think it tends to get tied up in the alkaline soil fairly quickly (I think the chelate breaks down fairly quickly, then the high pH ties up the iron again, and you need large quantities which become quite expensive. I had always had recommendations from the extension service to use iron chelate for iron deficiency, but later I was advised to use the ferrous sulphate by a professor for the combined free iron/acidifying properties. When I used the iron chelate, I never had much in the way of results unless I sprayed weekly at least, and that just doesn't happen with me. With the ferrous sulphate, I could spread it once and see lasting effects for anywhere from the remainder of the summer to several years. Part of my lawn is watered with a sprinkler using well water which is very high in lime. Gradually it turns yellow and thin with iron chlorosis. Fertilizing with nitrogen had no effect. Add some ferrous sulphate and in a week it was turning green, growing like it was badly overfertilized, and the stand thickens up. One year my supplier stopped carrying the ferrous sulphate but had ferrous gluconate and said it was much easier to use and worked the same--so I wondered but tried it. Think I still have most of the bag. It showed no effect on the plants, smelled like molasses and had no irritating dust so I found a new supplier for the ferrous sulphate (I'm not going to apply it if I don't get results). I don't fully remember my chemistry from school, acids/bases, oxidizers/reducers, strong vs. weak acids & bases & the chemical reactions that take place when these chemicals are placed in solution and I'm sure there are those out there that can more than adequately cover the subject (not that I'd want to learn it all over again, though!) I mainly try to cover some of the principles and describe what has worked from experience. Plus, I've never tried to grow blueberries as trying to provide an acid environment in my soil seems like too high a maintenance. Overall, what is being dealt with here is that in drier climates, the soils tend to have a large reservoir of lime and an alkaline pH. Acid loving plants may not need acid to live, however they consume quantities of minerals which are mineralized and unavailable at high pH, but become readily available at lower pH and blueberries have adapted to soils where these minerals are readily available. Trying to lower the pH of the soil to create an acid one suitable for blueberries is very hard, because to make the soil acid you have to essentially eliminate the alkaline lime in the soil, and it will take tons of amendments to do that. To compensate, you remove the soil, replace it with organic matter which is naturally acidic, then work to counteract the ongoing process of your climate and geology from turning the new acidic, organic soil back into an alkaline, mineralized soil and add a few of the more important nutrients the plants need so that they are readily available, even if the pH is a little higher than the plant desires. One last caveat--in acidic soils, NEVER add ferrous sulphate for an iron deficiency. You don't need more acid (unless you actually want a more acidic soil). Use iron chelate or the ferrous gluconate. Sorry this is much too long, but hopefully it explains the basis of my thoughts so you can judge for yourselves what is best in your situation.

Thanks hort, I really appreciate the feedback. If it is incompatibility, then the graft seems likely to eventually fail. I had a matte over around the base, with mulch on top to cut off all light to the rootstock hoping that would curtail suckering...... NOPE! Pulled it up yesterday, and there is a full ring around the base of pale white suckers from the RS looking for a way out to the light. I'm seriously considering allowing one of them to grow at this point and taking my chances on getting a female tree. Even if it turns out to be female, other than my two dwarfs, there are NO other Ginkgo ANYWHERE near, so pollination would not be likely. If I did this, I could leave the current graft in place and keep my female significant other counterpart happy, while something more satisfying came up. I know she likes it even though I'm not so happy. I also thought about trying to find a place for another one. On a side note, do you have an opinion as to which cultivar develops yellow fall color the earliest? I'm subject to early and late freezes in my location, and I'm thinking that an earlier turning selection (if I replace this one) might be a wise consideration. Thanks in advance, Arktrees

I too am a fan of common-as-dirt plants, having a great respect for what is easy to grow and handsome in flower (there's a reason daylilies are found in every garden). Possibly a modest reverse snobbery speaks in my liking for bulky plants with a single season of beauty--lilacs, mock orange--and those that take a few years to get going, like peonies. I'm tired of hearing about the need for plants of contained size with multi-season interest: enough!!!! Actually I sense the nudges of snobbery and reverse snobbery, but try to see the plant itself, and keep the characteristics of my garden firmly in mind. Is the plant beautiful at some point, and does that beauty make it worth its space in the garden and the work it will require? Can I cultivate it in my conditions? Will it work esthetically? Forsythia, for example, has a sole virtue, its brilliant early spring flowering; and then it's either green or naked for the remaining eleven months of the year. And forsythia is common as dirt and frequently abused. For me, it's a must, for that wonderful flowering after a long dark winter, and for its spraying shrub form. Oh, yes, yes, yes. And lilac, which is also beautiful for one month of the year and dull the rest of the time; but when lilac is in bloom, it's the most opulent shrub around, and unique: it has no substitute. Lilac is perfectly adapted to our soil and climate and it lives forever. I intend to acquire a lilac collection one day, when I can find the money. I think Italy needs more lilacs. They're a neglected plant in this country, and yet lilacs and tall bearded irises are to me the most characteristic flowering plants of our area. Suzy, I was meaning to ask you what the small-leaved Italian ligustrum is that you mentioned? We have a native ligustrum, not particularly small-leaved, that is a handsome plant when subjected to garden culture, but sadly invasive. It has dark glossy green foliage and flowers like a smaller white version of lilac. I don't dare let it in the garden. I'm actually not sure of the botanical names of the privets I use--they're just called 'ligustro'--and there seems to be some confusion in the taxonomy of ornamental varieties, to judge from my reading. There's a small-leaved variety which is commonly used for hedging but which makes a nice shrub when allowed to grow freely. Then what I think is 'California privet', with larger leaves, and which I think is the species origin of the yellow-variegated variety. Both of these are semi-evergreen. Then the evergreen Japanese privet with camellia-like leaves, which is the one I grew up with in Florida. As a last digression, I'm impressed by how many plants that do well here belong to the family Oleaceae: olives, of course; lilacs; privets; forsythia. Recently I read that also jasmines belong to this family. I must rethink Jasminum officinale. Melissa

I allowed my agrostemma to self sow last year and left my raised bed in a tangle, literally! They were absolute Hell to harvest. I have found that rows with support netting, mid way up to prevent the crossed stems (which will happen occasionally anyway) is a better way to go. IMHO, Kat