My guess is the nutrients in the alfalfa (lot's of nitrogen) would be unavailable to the trees until the alfalfa has been broken down by microbial activity. I would say it's probably best to put the pellets in the compost heap first.

i NEVER fertilize trees ... nor conifers ... nor shrubs ... and they just do fine ... EVER ...

why do you presume they need anything at all???

how can you ID where the feeder roots are in the ground... on a 20 foot tall tree.. they are probably 20 to 40 feet from the trunk .. what are the odds that you are actually going to put the stuff where it will do any good????

skip it all ...

all that said.. if you want to get rid of the alfalfa ... make a tea out of it.. and water it into the ground... use the search function.. it has been discussed to death on the hosta forum.. last summer ....

good luck

ken

Lou, while I think it is arguable that the " -icide " chemicals may have some effect on soil biology, I don't entirely buy the fact that inorganic/synthetic fertilizers have an appreciable detrimental effect on soil biology.

Your soil microbes are going to break the alfalfa down into the SAME molecular constituents as is contained in the inorganic/synthetics, and the plant can't tell the difference. If you're worried about keeping your soil microbes happy, use a good compost, and go ahead and use a synthetic fertilizer (at proper application rates) for macronutrients.

Cheaper, quicker, and probably more effective than alfalfa, methinks. By the way, I wonder what the alfalfa farmer used on his fields to ensure a good crop?

Thank you everyone. I only use organic products, and these trees are relatively young.

Ken one reason I feed the trees is for their overall health. We live in a sub-division that's 5 years old. I planted 13 trees and the builder put some trees along the streets. Since I feed all my young trees, I feed the builder's too. Because the builder trees are the same throughout the neighborhood, it's interest that the difference between our trees and the other trees is amazing. Deep green leaves, good healthy growth, resistance to pests ... etc. The trees obviously benefit from supplementals. =)

I think they'll like the alfalfa. I may give some to the confiers, too. Some of them are looking a little pale after our long winter.

Thanks again =)

ps I do an alfalfa tea appplication on my roses in July. I'm afraid the water might freeze at night.

Mehearty, your alfalfa pellets may be plant material, but I'll just about guarantee you they're not organic. Above I asked, "I wonder what the alfalfa farmer used on his fields to ensure a good crop?" He certainly is not putting alfalfa pellets on his alfalfa plants!

Ask me; alfalfa fields are all around my house. I'd bet good money there are more pesticide residues in your alfalfa pellets than my Miracle Grow All Purpose fertilizer.

As with all fertilizing it depends on if the particular nutrients in the alfalfa are needed by those trees on that soil, in the amounts you would end up applying. Soils vary in mineral content, without doing some sampling of your soil and having it analyzed (ask your state Cooperative Extension about this) you don't really have enough information to make informed decisions about fertilizing your trees.

Y'all don't really have a clue how organic fertilizer works, do y'all? Forget everything you've learned about chemical stuff. Totally different concept. It's all about improving the soil.

Ken, you may know your stuff on conifers but you know absolutely nothing about nutrient cycling. Seriously... You are growing trees in artificial environment where nutrient cycling isn't all that good. Untouched forests have massive nutrient cycling going on. My trees are so much more healthy compared to neighbors because they use chemical crap and I just improve soil organically. Way much cheaper than compost. You feed soil biology with alfalfa, whatever and they grow and improve the soil. They literally turned my white soil into black and a lot softer while my neighbor's is still white and rock hard! it just makes me laugh when ignorant like you makes stupid comments like that without having a clue how it really works.

Red Neck - it suits you perfectly. You are clueless.

http://www.soilfoodweb.com/03_about_us/approach_pgs/a_01_benefits.html

http://soils.usda.gov/sqi/concepts/soil_biology/soil_food_web.html

Y'all might actually learn one or two thing...

Yup, soil health translates into plant health. I've used spoiled hay as a mulch......by the truckload. Works just fine. Worms love it! If worms love it you know it's good for the soil because worms are good for the soil by making it more porous while at the same time increasing it's ability to hold moisture. Friability and nutrients are the result. The trees will use what they need and the soil condition will allow the roots to spread and have the surface area to absorb them. I top dress with woodchips to make it look better.

Mulching should be standard practice. However, this does not substitute for fertilizing where there is a nutrient deficiency. The mulch would have to contain the deficient nutrient in adequate amounts to correct the deficiency.

Lou, clueless about what? I'd be curious what statement I made you could argue with. And by the way, I never said that using alfalfa pellets was worthless (the purpose of the original post), only that it would take some time to break down.

Am I clueless because I argued alfalfa pellets were not organic? I simply stated that there are probably pesticide residues in alfalfa, and not in chemical fertilizers. Google the key words "alfalfa pesticides" and you'll get a pretty scary list. No need to have pesticides in chemical-based fertilizers.

And, I also never argued (re-read my posts) that applying organic matter to garden soils was not needed, or not helpful to soil biology.

You obviously pre-judged me based upon my screen-name ("Red Neck - it suits you perfectly. You are clueless"). You act like you have all the answers, and also don't seem to value diverging opinions.

Let me "clue" YOU in:

1) I use alfalfa all the time on my plants; never said I didn't (we raise cattle, sheep, goats, and horses). I put moldly and waste alfalfa hay in my compost pile (I have a big one). Manure is good, too.

2) I mulch heavily with aged compost, pine shavings, and aged wood chips.

3) I don't use pesticides. I put out beneficial insects, if needed. I water-spray for aphids, I trap slugs/snails, I plant companion plants that attract beneficials, I plant pest-resistent varieties, I pick off caterpillars and other plant chompers, etc. etc....

4) I PULL weeds, use plant-based mulches and landscape cloth. I don't spray with herbicides.

5) And yes, I use chemical based fertilizers when needed; sometimes the plants need them.

Think twice the next time you launch a personal attack.

Dudes- Let the research do the talkin. Appreciate the passion. Read "Tree and Shrub Fertilization: Proceedings from an International Conference on Tree and Shrub Fertilization". It has all you could ever want to know on the subject in one compact book. You can find this on the International Society of Arboriculture website.

The thing that bugs is the consistant suggestion to perform soil tests. Read up on the subject and you will find nitrogen is almost always the limiting nutrient in trees. It CANNOT be accurately tested via soil tests.

You can learn about other needed nutrients, but nitrogen applied via SLOW release WIN granular pellets is a failsafe way to get improved growth from trees.

I have researched this subject extensively for the past few years and have read nearly every article I could find on the subject. There is good stuff out there that can improve tree growth in a healthy/safe manner. Landscape trees have different needs than trees growing in established forests. Those that are too stubborn and/or think it is taboo to apply nitrogen of any sort to tree likely refuse to read up on the issue or refuse to accept the results of the research.

John

Most state universities and many private laboratories conduct tests of soil samples to determine the levels of available nutrients. The nutrient elements generally checked are:

nitrogen (sometimes expressed as nitrates, ammonia or organic matter level, since the breakdown of organic matter releases nitrogen for plant growth)
phosphorus,
potassium (sometimes called potash),
calcium, and
magnesium

--Whitcomb, Establishment and Maintenance of Landscape Plants (1987 (1991), Lacebark Inc., Stillwater)

Here is a link that might be useful: Establishment and Maintenance of Landscape Plants II

Please dig beneath the surface of this issue and get past broad statements that lack detailed backing.

I personally have called several soil labs and nurseries on the issue. They all say the same thing as I previously stated. Please feel free to do the same. Also read the multiple papers on the issue - there are several references in there. Universities do a great job of soil tests. I have had many on my land. They always state the nitrogen test is not accurate. Below are a couple links I found real quick.

University of Clemson:
http://hgic.clemson.edu/factsheets/hgic1652.htm
Nitrogen: Available nitrogen is taken up by plant roots in the form of nitrate (NO3-) and ammonium (NH4+). Nitrogen testing is not recommended because the levels of available nitrogen are variable due to its mobility in the soil. The available forms of nitrogen are very water soluble and move rapidly through the soil profile with rainfall and irrigation. This causes the amount in the root zone to fluctuate over time. Recommendations are based on the requirements of the particular plants you are growing.

University of New Hampshire:
http://extension.unh.edu/Pubs/HGPubs/soiltest.pdf
Why doesnÂt the lab test nitrogen?
Nitrogen is a very unstable element. Its availability changes from week to week as a result of biological activity
in the soil and weather conditions. To accurately measure nitrogen, samples must be frozen immediately and
shipped quickly to the labÂa very expensive process. Therefore, nitrogen testing is generally done only on highvalue
commercial crops, not home garden/lawn samples. The home gardener will get nitrogen recommendations
based on crop need rather than on a soil nitrogen test.

Don't believe me - please read the detailed research papers in the book I mentioned by the International Society of Arboriculture. There are dozens of papers on the issue over several decades. The conclusions are SLOW release WIN fetilizer promotes tree growth without damaging trees.

John

Let's distill the foregoing arguments thus:

1) Go ahead and use alfalfa on your plants; good mulch, enhances soil microflora and fauna, and provides some nutrients. BUT, you may not get optimum growth.

2) Supplement with inorganic nitrogen compounds, and/or other nutrients, for optimum growth.

Sounds good to me.

Optimimum growth is not always a good thing. Aphids LOVE abnormally fast growing new growth on a lot of plants.

Too much new growth on some trees leaves them vulnerable to ice and snow breakage the following winter.

Too much nitrogen on wheat can cause it to grow too tall and fall over prior to harvesting.

I'm for slow release, and good soil conditions when it comes to my garden.

>Please dig beneath the surface of this issue and get past broad statements that lack detailed backingMaybe you should try reading references cited before announcing there is no detailed backing etc. In his recent second (2006) edition Whitcomb identifies a specific lab he prefers to use for soil testing because they will do the kind of test he considers adequate.

Botann,
Of course you are correct about abnormally rapid growth perhaps being a problem. But I chose my words carefully; I said "optimum", not "maximum". There is a big difference. For instance, it would be "optimum" to cut back fertilizer application in late summer/early fall to allow spring and summer growth to harden off and help prevent snow load problems, etc., as you mentioned.

In addition, "optimum" may indeed mean "maximum" for some growers, or some times of the year; ie, those growing trees as bonsai candidates (potentsai) may be looking for rapid trunk diameter increases, not caring at all about weak limbs, etc., because these limbs will all be chopped off later anyway.

The bottom line being that judicious application of fertilizers, in the right quantities, at the right times, is one way to ensure optimum, thought not necessarily maximum, growth.

Cheers

Amen redneck. Your statement is the summary of nearly all of the papers. Fert in late fall or very early spring for optimal growth- don't dump on a bunch of Mircale Gro trying for maximum growth.

Concerning labs - there may be some labs that perform expensive tests that give a snapshot of nitrogen in the soil on that particular day.

All soil scientists will agree on 2 points:
-Typical soil tests are unreliable in showing nitrogen.
-Nitrogen moves quickly through the soil and nitrogen readings from week to week are very different.

Concerning pest damage due to fertilizing. This subject was studied in one of the papers in the book. It was found the non-fertilized trees had more pest damage than fertilized trees.

The book previously mentioned is cheap and is full of great tables and graphs. I highly recommend it. The amount of info collected is unbelievble.

None of the papers stated slow release nitrogen is bad in any way for trees.

I think some of the debate about this subject may be because different people read the same statements and think two different things. "Supplement with inorganic nitrogen ... for optimum growth" can be read two ways. Reading as "Supplement with inorganic nitrogen (if needed/as needed) ... for optimum growth" is one thing, but if you read it as "Supplement with inorganic nitrogen (regularly, or every year at a certain time, etc) ... for optimum growth," the meaning is quite different, because optimum growth may be less than what would be realized when nitrogen was added.

Another point is that common inorganic fertilizer can be harmful to trees. The University of Saskatchewan sums up many of the common concerns when it says the following:
"Commercial fertilizer, especially nitrogen, is easily washed below the level of the plant's root system through the leaching of rain or irrigation. An application which is too heavy or too close to the roots of the plants may cause "burning" (actually a process of desiccation by the chemical salts in the fertilizer)... Commercial fertilizers can build up toxic concentrations of salts in the soil, thus creating chemical imbalances."

Point conceded, brandon. Perhaps I could have said it better, thus: "supplement, or choose NOT to supplement, as required to achieve optimum growth."

I used alfalfa pellets last fall for the first time ever as I had attended a garden club meeting at which the speaker had recommended their usage. I live in northern Nevada, and most of the soil in this area is alkaline. My scarlet oak trees need feeding most years as they like acidic soils. They are greener this year with usage of alfalfa pellets than I can remember their ever being, previously. I'll use them again this fall and see if they continue to satisfy my trees. I fed a pear and a crab apple successfully, also.