Like animals, trees grown from seed must pass through several phases of development before they become sexually mature and capable of producing reproductive parts (blooms/ seeds/ fruit). The plant phases of seed - seedling - juvenile - sexually mature are roughly mirrored in human developmental stages of embryonic - infantile - juvenile - adult/ sexually mature. A freshly sprouted seedling is no more capable of producing reproductive parts (blooms/ seeds/ fruit) than an infant. Too, a plant's aging process is different than an animal's. Where animals age chronologically, plants age ontogenetically. Ontogenetic aging can be thought of in terms of how many cell divisions have occurred to move the plant to its current phase of development. One might reason that the most recent new growth would be the youngest part of the plant, but ontogenetically, it is the the oldest part of the plant because it has taken many more cell divisions to produce the newest parts. Ontogenetically, the youngest part of a tree grown from seed will always be the root to shoot transition area at the base of the trunk, no matter how old the tree is chronologically. Pruning a tree back hard can easily remove all existing mature growth and return it to a juvenile phase that would require a considerable amount of new growth before the wood again becomes mature. All factors that influence growth rate have an impact on how long (chronologically) it takes a plant to become sexually mature, so thinking that a change in nutrition alone will cause a plant to bloom is misguided. The fastest seedlings to mature within any given species will depend on how proficient Mother Nature or the plant's grower is at providing ideal cultural conditions. Ideal cultural conditions = most rapid growth rate and shortest period of time to reach maturity; this, simply because ideal conditions are most conducive to cell divisions and therefore a fruitful tree at a younger chronological age. It should be noted that applying nutrients or other products in willy nilly fashion with no knowledge of whether or not there is an actual deficiency of those nutrients or no good reason to apply them is highly likely to be limiting in terms of both growth and rate of maturation. Whenever we discuss what is or isn't an appropriate part of the methodology we use to make certain our plants get all the nutrients essential to growth and good health, we would probably first want to be sure our objectives are on target. It's difficult to argue with the idea that our focus in supplying supplemental nutrition to our plants should be on ensuring all the nutrients plants normally assimilate from the soil are A) IN the soil and available for uptake at all times, B) in the soil in a favorable ratio - that is to say in a ratio that mimics the ratio at which the plant actually uses the nutrient, C) at a concentration high enough to ensure no nutritional deficiencies, yet still low enough to ensure the plant's ability to take up water efficiently, and the nutrients dissolved in that water won't be impeded (by a high concentration of solubles in the soil solution). The part in bold is where growers often run afoul of sound husbandry. By adding unnecessary nutrients we A) skew the ratio of nutrients, each to the others, such that an excess of one nutrient causes a deficiency of one or more other nutrients, and B) make it more difficult for the plant to assimilate water and nutrients. So, for plants in containers, best results can be had by choosing 1 fertilizer with an appropriate nutrient ratio and all the nutrients essential to normal growth. Forget the snake oil products and claims made on product packaging by sellers whose only goal is separating you from your money. For plants in the landscape, a soil test is ESSENTIAL for any grower aiming at providing the best cultural conditions possible. "A little extra" is almost always going to be limiting rather than beneficial; otherwise, it wouldn't be "extra". Al

"branches are coming out from the base" could be root suckers. (But your link doesn't go to such a photo.) To determine if that's so, look for the slight jog in the main stem (where the tree was grafted) -- if the shots are from below the jog, remove all and remove any others that appear as soon as they are seen. Your link shows a single leaf but is seriously out of focus. Notice that the in focus zone is behind that. So please back up a bit and take another picture of the leaf. As for "not taking off," the tree has only been in the ground for 6 months, It needs time to develop a sturdy root system in the ground before that can occur. Typically requires several years.

"continually added fresh water through the fill tube in an attempt to dilute the hydrated lime solution (the soil is covered by a plastic cover, which is part of the Earthbox system)." OK, I get it. Since I'm a DIYer who reads but still won't follow directions (and have no patience for being on tour buses and the like LOL), removing the cover is something I wouldn't think twice about to get rid of the excess. But a single top flood if we could turn back the clock would have addressed the problem much more effectively. More importantly, I think it may also hold a clue for you to re-enforce your original thoughts on what happened when you didn't quickly refill with the balance of water. You'd wick up the let's say 2x concentrated solution, which you already worried about ... but if the top had somewhat dried, you'd also wick up more total volume ... we are not dealing with a gas tank, but rather a sponge. Now you are slowly removing it since there will be a concentration gradient through the small wicks and what is above stays (and this might be the situation that tigrikt was thinking and helping you with too). "I usually use a bagged planting mix from the local nursery (their own "custom mix"), which contains a variety of ingredients (peat, redwood, bat guano, etc.)." tigrikt could comment better than I on this one if they are an actual EB user in your sort of climate. I'm inclined to think you have bad advice from the nursery on the soil, if there is nothing in there to cut back on the sponginess of the peat - like perlite. Redwood? perhaps you mean redwood bark? Big difference there. I'm not up on shredded redwood wood, but I do recall Dr. Gericke had some issues with it, as being somewhat acidic at least, though as a composted ingredient it would probably be good. Either way these things seem to add up to high acid (hurts calcium uptake) and high water retention - outside the sweet spot. I am assuming a lot of things online so it is more of the concern I'd check on, and recommend you learn more about the properties of soils. I understand you've grown this way for years, with reasonable results, so I'm just suggesting you go to the next level now and experiment a little with your soil mix's water retention with something as simple as some added perlite in a few Boxes if you want to take it slowly. Sey has been experimenting with a mix in containers promoted by tapla, and probably could add a few thoughts on the soil if he's still following the thread. Cheers PC edit: maybe the cover is not removable, and I assume it is. If that's the case, I'm sure a DIYer could experiment with removable covers, which I guess is going against the EB concept of set it and forget it, so it will depend on the complexity you feel is appropriate for your situation. One difference between my containers and yours is that I use a lighter mix uncovered and depend on the rain to naturally flush with pure rainwater (free distilled water). It helps keep accumulation or any errors with fertilizer supplements in check, but I enjoy supplementing with fertilizers so that is part of my growing strategy.

Relation to landscaping?