Guthion is another one that will be sorely missed. Cherry growers really don't have much of a backup plan after it's phased out in the next few years. They have a zero tolerance threshold for cherry maggot (due to stringent requirements of exports, as I recall). None of the proposed replacements for Guthion work as effectively. Currently extension personnel are telling cherry growers to find solutions for maggot before Guthion is completely pulled, but are not really telling them how to do it. Growers are essentially left to themselves to try to figure out some spray program that will work with the current insecticides available. Not to be misunderstood, I think the EPA on the whole has done a good job removing older more dangerous chemistries and encouraging newer safer ones. Although I'm not in complete support for the ban on Guthion and Methyl Bromide (given the increased restrictions for its use i.e. increased buffer zones, monitoring of drift, notification of neighbors, etc) what I'm mostly opposed to is the knee-jerk reactions which seem to be taking place with neonicotinoids and the current bee crisis. As far as competitiveness of U.S. ag, the U.S. farmer has been able to compete w/ countries where labor is very cheap. Traditionally this has been done through automation. A combine running through a field at 10 acres/hr. can compete with a Chinaman harvesting the same field, no matter how little he's paid. Some of our crops are still labor intensive (I'm thinking of fruits here) but that is changing. Thinning and harvesting are in the early stages of becoming fully automated. When that happens, cost of labor will no longer be a factor, as is the case currently with field crops. I do think environmental regulation may tip the scale. Not that I'm against regulation, just that we need to recognize there is a fine balance between adequately protecting the environment and rendering our food growing sector non-competitive. Perhaps that sounds like a severe statement, but the uncomfortable truth is that huge yield increases (and thereby the abundant cheap food) we've enjoyed over the last 50 years are largely the result of synthetic fertilizer and effective pesticides. I'm not trying to start an organic vs. conventional debate, just explaining my rationale for claiming environmental regulation can have a pretty big impact. It would be unfortunate if regulation got so aggressive as to take us back to years where pests took a significant percentage of the crop.

Those reading this thread grow plants in media that range from sticky, extremely water retentive, and low in oxygen when they are saturated, to media that remain friable (uncompacted), highly oxygenated, and hold NO perched water when they are completely saturated. We cannot simply blame poor plant performance on watering habits, as I illustrated upthread. Neither, can we consider plant/water relationships without considering the media. When we blame poor plant performance on over-watering, what are we saying? On one hand, we might be saying that we are applying too much water to the soil, but is that really accurate? I don't think so. I think it's much more accurate to say the soil is holding too much water. Doesn't this then, shift the responsibility for root rot issues and poor plant performance to the media instead of the hand controlling the water can? The argument might be raised that all you need to do is water less - problem solved .....right? Not so fast. What happens when we water less, in small sips? Salts accumulate in soils from the fertilizers we apply and, as this happens, plants have increasing difficulty absorbing water and the nutrients dissolved in water from the soil. This is stress, and it assuredly affects the plants vitality and diminishes potential growth. Yes, you are able to work around this issue of accumulating salts by eliminating them from the soil with thorough flushing - frequently, but that is a time consuming process and several extra steps. Since the reason you need to flush the soil is because it is too water retentive in the first place, flushing it places the plant at risk for root rot - unless you take still additional steps to make sure that doesn't occur - like depotting the plant and placing it on newspaper over night so the water saturating the soil can be wicked into the newspaper and evaporate. So it sounds good to say it's a watering issue, and not a soil issue, but we can clearly see that it is not a watering issue. Lets look at the other end of the soil range for a moment. Consider a soil with particles that are large enough that the soil holds no water between soil pores. The descriptive terminology would be that it 'holds no perched water'. You can water this soil every hour of every day, yet it holds no water between it's particles. It does. however, hold plenty of water INSIDE the particles - water plants can easily access as they need it. As the plants access this water, their roots are totally surrounded by plenty of air - even immediately after you water to saturation. Even if you water again 10 minutes later, all the water drains from the pores between particles and air returns to the entire volume of soil. How do we need to treat plants in the heavy soil? We need to water them carefully, because if we over-water the soil remains saturated, anaerobic (airless) conditions prevail, and root function/metabolism suffers, the plant is stressed and grows with reduced vitality. While, and because we are watering in small amounts to prevent soil saturation, salts are accumulating and additionally stressing plants. This occurs in every planting you cannot water properly because the medium is too water-retentive. How do we treat plants in the porous soil? We water them until about 10-15% of the water we applied comes out the drain and move on to the next plant - no worries - repeat in a few days. From what I offered, it's easy to see that soils and watering are inextricably related, and that it is actually the SOIL that dictates how you are able to water. Roots die when subjected to saturated (anaerobic) conditions. They don't all die at the same time; they die incrementally with the finest of roots - the workhorses - dieing first, larger roots following finer roots as the length of exposure to anaerobic conditions increases. This process begins quickly, even if you can't see it, within hours of watering, and doesn't stop until the water in the soil is used up and air returns to the soil. At that point, the lost roots begin to regenerate. This is very stressful, and extremely expensive to the plant in terms of energy outlay. The energy the plant must put into root regeneration would have went to blooms, fruit, more leaves, branch extension, or an increase in biomass. It simply is bad for the growth process. These problems are entirely eliminated in soils at the other end of the spectrum, so 'no', we cannot so easily say that it is over-watering that causes these issues when in fact, they are directly related to soil choice. Heavy (water-retentive) soils are convenient and readily available everywhere, and there are the strategies I touched on to help you cope with the difficulties encountered when using them, but the price of convenience, as you see, is often measured in plant vitality. Al

Please forgive my recent absence. Due to recent personal issues I've been been unable to participate and am now slowly trying to catch up on things. I still reject all ideas about chemicals, herbicides, salt water intrusion, etc. The distribution pattern does not correlate. To recap slightly, what I'm seeing (though I've not been out much lately) is vast normal areas of seemingly healthy trees in which one comes across single dead trees widely spaced--mostly oaks, but other species, too--and most alarmingly, groups (4-7) of dead trees. As anyone who lives around here knows, Oaks are the vast majority of existing trees in central Florida so it's no surprise that even if multiple species are uniformly affected, it would be Oaks that bear the brunt of the effect and suffer in greater numbers. (As soon as I get a chance I will try to make and post a video and will put a notice about it here.) Sometimes, the group will have other nearby individual dead trees very close around it... such as 4 adjacent dead trees, and within 500' of them, 4 or 5 more. Recently, of a group of a dozen or so palms, I noticed 3 adjacent ones, fresh dead. Another symptom that may or may not be related... I'm seeing many trees that from a distance look healthy, but have tip sections (approx. 3'-6') of branches that are flat dead. Some of these trees may have 3 such dead branches (as viewed from one side). Some may have a dozen. I'm in eastern Hillsborough County. Yesterday, I went to Brandon (a more urban/suburban area) and over there I did not see as many dead trees and dead branch tips. But there were some. Also, recently, I happened upon a land owner who was affected by dead trees so inquired as to what he knew. He was adamant that the death was caused by beetles. He claimed to obtain this information from someone who would know about such things, but our conversation was hectic as he was in the middle of work activity requiring his focus. And I had little time then, too, so was not able to get more information. However, I can believe that such a theory is far more likely than any chemical-based theory. I could imagine how beetles could move into an area and quickly distribute themselves on an adjacent group of trees. And on some other nearby trees. And then fly off to trees one-quarter mile away and do it all again. I can imagine, too, that they could do this in concert with some weather/climate phenomenon and seemingly "burst" upon the scene as a sudden catastrophe... such as the periodic "herds of locusts." They could do damage directly or be the carrier of disease a la the well known Dutch Elm Disease. However, I'm not in a position to research this information first-hand and there seems to be a lack of it coming through official channels. When I fist reported it here it was extremely new (to this area) so stood a good chance of not yet being noticed or having anyone ascertain its degree of impact. The overall distribution of this condition... what may or may not exist beyond my area, is unknown to me. Maybe we are the "epicenter." Or maybe this is just old stuff finally working its way through this area from other parts of Florida. I'm surprised that it is does not yet seem to be a major local news story or that definitive information is not coming forth via official channels. Then again, I've been out of commission for more than two weeks.

Marshall, most of what you stated is true - but is only a small part of the picture. I do send samples off for analysis as far from Texas as Oregon - because I know how to corelate the information resulting from my sample to my 'little piece of earth' (or compost). And I desire the highest quality results - be it nutrition, condition/texture or microbe population count - for the same dollar. Yes, different test methods produce different results (identified at the bottom of most test reports). Test results can still be correlated to a different type of test result. Still 'apples to apples'. Still only a matter of education based on a person's degree of interest. This thread subject is important, in my opinion, simply because education is important. We should never stop asking questions, to learn more about improving our own piece of earth, for which we have accepted responsibility. In the main, soil tests ARE 'sacred' to state-run soil laboratories and to the thousands of U.S. county agricultural extension agents who are continuously called upon to render professional services to the commercial harvest business community - based on such science-based tests. Your grocery store depends on them. See, it is still "all about the money". Most plant/soil related research is focused toward, and paid for by commercial agriculture and the companies that support that industry, which feeds our growing population. So I think that tests based on regional soil conditions is a good thing - but tests should be also be sufficiently complete to offer insight into specific planting needs in MY piece of earth - which anyone can easily learn to do by reading. Finding the best test is important to me. Unfortunately, most people who receive soil analysis reports are not also told that they can take that report to their county agricultural extension agent for interpretation to their specific needs. Agreed, the resulting written piece of paper is worthless without knowing how to apply the information. But the public service Ag.Agent is trained in how to do that (and local Master Gardeners). Anyone can research what the relationship of CA is to MG based on given factors. Education IS the Agent's primary focus (and the state land-grant university that supports them), even to the homeowner - which is why the Master Gardener program is supported. Granted, home-style agriculture/horticulture does not usually operate on commercial scale. But science-based soil information is not usually about 'scale'. Scale is a matter of applied mechanics based on time and money. As a soilmaker/nurseryman/landscaper in south central Florida many years ago, I learned (the hard way) to find out what the soil conditions were (in advance) and to ensure proper plant-specific moisture, before installing a variety of plants in someone's property - particularly gardens, shrubs and trees (soil test for nutrients/pH/salt is only part of that gamut). Some of my Florida client's soils received different amendments before certain plantings took place because different plants do have different needs - to thrive (not just survive). Replacing dead plants cost me money, and was bad for my business. Soil tests were simply one means by which I made decisions that SAVED me (and the property owner) time/money. Learning to decipher soil analysis results is not difficult, but is (unfortunately) one of the things many gardeners are reticent to investigate, even after problems are encountered. An ounce of prevention is STILL worth a 'pound of cure', and having a base of reference on which to make improvements to soil (and compost) - is important to me, in what I do. And agree that 'organics' still takes a 'back seat' to the chemical industry - regretably. But that 'world view' is changing...Slowly, but surely - because that's about human survival on this planet. Robert