After thinking about it more I've decided to have two rows of espalier, with heat lovers against the fence and apples, grapes, and currants 4 (or 5?) feet away. That way I can squeeze in more fruit and I can try some things that don't normally ripen well in my climate. Figs grow here but it seems like one year in three we get a really good harvest and the other two it rains before the second crop is ripe, pomegranates usually don't get enough heat to get sweet, and apricots average one good crop every ten years or so because of frost and storms during their bloom time. I'm hoping the reflected heat from the fence will be enough to help the figs and poms ripen, and espaliered apricot trees will be much easier to protect from inclement weather during their bloom time. With luck I'll be able to enjoy fruits that would otherwise be impossible for me to grow, and also the beauty of espalier, which I am quite taken with. I wish I had an area to make a Belgian Fence privacy screen, but I don't. I'm having trouble choosing which fig to grow. My go-to nursery for fruits has a thing kind of like a 'read this' list in a bookstore, cultivars that have been grown by staff and proved to both do well in our area and have tasty fruit. I am quite taken with Tiger (Panache) but the description says it's best for hot climates and it doesn't come with a recommendation, while Violette de Bordeaux does come with the recommendation but is just not as exciting to me as a green striped fig. Should I pick the proven winner, or go out on a limb? This post was edited by peachymomo on Wed, May 1, 13 at 11:31

Wow, the flame wars are still going on. But, it sure makes for an interesting read. Been too busy at work to follow them for a while. I still pose my previous question from a few days ago -- Where is all of this moral outrage when the animal being killed isn't cute, fuzzy, and something that showed up in a Disney movie? Other than one poster, no one seems to care about moles, voles, squash borers, slugs, etc., but they are all 'God's creatures' are they not? Perhaps it's symptomatic of the society we live in -- would the media follow the daily ups and downs of Britney, Paris, Tom-Kat, or BrAngelina if they weren't the 'beautiful people?' I think the animal rights bleeding hearts are only concerned about the cute, fuzzy little critters. Despite the fact that one poster seems to think I'm some kind of psychopathic serial killer because I put out poison bait blocks for the voles, it seems to me that I and the vast majority of the rest of the posters on here recognize the need to control vermin species when they get out of hand. If we don't keep things like mice, voles, rats, etc., under control, we'll all end up living in filth and disease as happened during the Middle Ages. And, in the real world, the only practical way to do this is often to kill them. It doesn't mean it's 'fun,' but sometimes, 'a man's gotta do ....' And, it isn't based on some deep, dark psychological 'need' to harm animals, its based on a simple, pragmatic desire to protect all of our hard work and our financial investment. Trust me, been there, done that, I really did have a blue heron eat $500 worth of koi in an afternoon. No, I didn't kill it or shoot it, I strung fishline all across the pond, which was a pain in the butt, but it worked to deter the herons. Had that not worked, in that case, I would have been screwed, because herons are protected under the Migratory Bird Act of 1919, no exceptions that I know of allow them to be killed. I did lose many of hundreds of dollars worth of plants to voles in the past few years. Some of them were figs and other woody plants I was overwintering in a deep trench under mulch. When I dug them out in the spring, I LITERALLY had sawdust, nothing else was left. So, I now put out, carefully, in nooks and crannies where pets and desirable wild animals can't get them, LOTS of poison bait blocks. It's expensive, and frankly I wish I didn't have to, but it's better than the alternative of being overrun with voles. The poison bait keeps them to a low level, but doesn't totally eliminate them. I had a filthy mouse invade my house a few years back. I won't be a hypocrit myself and deny that I didn't get some little sense of satisfaction in hearing the mousetrap go 'snap' when I finally got the mouse that moved into my kitchen cupboards, but I hardly think that makes me a depraved Jeffrey Dahmer type serial killer. There's a big difference between people who are killing 'vermin' species for a legitimate economic or health reason, and between those mentally disturbed or sociopathic individuals who do torture animals, usually domestic animals, for some sick reason. I think the vast majority of us know the difference between a vole or squirrel and the neighbor's cat. And, I don't see how taking a little satisfaction in eliminating a serious pest problem which has been plaguing you makes someone a bad person. Now, when you take it to the level of George W. going after Saddam Hussein on contrived charges, just to show up or show off to his daddy, well, that's a whole 'nother ball of wax, starting a war, killing thousands of people, and sinking this country into a political and economic quagmire. When it rises to that level, then, I think you can legitimately ask questions about someone's psychological makeup and mental stability. But, those of us shooting a squirrel or two to save our fruit trees don't exactly rise to the George W. level. I apologize to any Neocons and Bush supporters out there, dont' want to turn this into a purely political debate,just had to vent a bit and make that analogy. By the way, for the squirrel huggers out there, are you aware of the fact that some communities BAN or LIMIT the feeding of squirrels and other wild animals and birds BECAUSE feeding them is a public health and safety issue? Roseville, Michigan is one such community, and there are others. And, while rare, squirrels CAN transmit rabies, among other diseases. Finally, a couple of other thoughts. Lobster -- yum! And, as someone named Dave pointed out above, I don't know WHY I'm wasting my time arguing this with someone who very well might be some 14 year old idealist who has never lived in the real world. Ah, the joys of the 'net. Allenwrench -- you might really enjoy this forum. Check it out, seems to be right up your alley, based upon all of your recent posts: http://www.idigmygarden.com/forums/ Dennis SE Michigan Dennis SE Michigan Here is a link that might be useful: I Dig My Garden Forums

"See if you can find any information about P that is actually based on research in the field where a lack of it has caused production problems. Check into Australian fruit production because, as I recall, their soil is ancient and very low in P." I Googled for a little bit and really didn't come up w/ much scientific info. (At least they didn't explain any science behind it.) I quickly came across a few examples like this: http://archive.agric.wa.gov.au/objtwr/imported_assets/content/pw/gard/nutritional_gn_formatted.pdf where they have a quick blurb about P, where they say, "Phosphorus is essential for the development of flowers, fruit and roots....In fruit trees, flowering and fruiting may be affected. Deficiency symptoms are more prevalent during cold, wet conditions. To correct the deficiency apply solid or liquid phosphate fertilisers." Ive read lots of stuff like this in the past, but I know you are looking for something more substantial. In Prof. D. Layne's book "The Peach, Botany Production and Uses", he mentions that P is rare in peaches and that generally there is no response to adding it. Interestingly he does say that P deficiency can occur, causing reduced growth, without any visual symptoms in the foliage. I'd post the link to the book, but since it's a copyrighted book, the link may not pull up the same pages I was reading. Google books does that sometimes. I know you are somewhat annoyed that commercial guidelines could recommend adding P w/o a soil test, but again it's only for the first two years, it's a small amount, and in a commercial orchard, where that amount of P would probably be used up by the time it got down to the root zone. The U.C. Davis link you posted above get their info. from their nutrition manual (linked at the bottom of their page). The authors of it even state, " In fact, annual requirements of fruit trees in general range from 5 to 10 lb/acre (6 to 11 kg/ha), which is much lower than for many field crops." Although they don't specifically state a maintenance program for P is required, they do imply it. Of course they don't recommend application of nutrients w/o testing, but U of GA only mentioned it for the first two years, which isn't a big issue to me. I've always read that P is very stable and immobile in soil, so I think the risk of pollution from a couple very light applications of P is very minimal. It seems most pollution from P comes from sewage treatment and feed lots. The link from the U.C. Davis nutrition manual says,"However, there is minimal leaching loss of phosphorus from the soil because it exists predominately in these insoluble forms." To me the danger of too much P is the reduced uptake of Zn, which is pretty important to peach trees. But there is little risk of too much P in this area, unless someone was careless w/ applying it. You may be right, that P doesn't matter for fruit trees, but there seems to enough university publications recommending a minimum level for it, that I think it warrants addressing in soils low in P, such as in this locale. Although I agree, there does seem to be a degree of conflicting advice about it. I think Rayrose has a very good point that Ph is just as important as the actual level of P in the soil, in terms of root uptake. I also agree that too much emphasis should not be placed on any one nutrient. I hope I haven't left the impression that P is the only nutrient that matters, or even the main nutrient. I just originally addressed Clark's situation based on my own soils, which showed P the most deficient of all nutrients. But I tried to qualify that by recognizing soils my be different in his part of the state.

Why Bokashi? Because Bokashi doesn't create greenhouse gasses! Because Food waste is the #1 item in our landfills! 24%! Food waste is responsible for 8-10% of our global greenhouse gasses! If you traditional hot compost perfectly you can cut down those Greenhouse gasses by 50% but with Bokashi it's 0 and has 100% carbon sequestration, 100% nutrient retention and it accepts all food stuff without having to manage proper levels of greens and browns etc. along with being faster it's much easier. Another important thing where I live, is that bears raccoons and rats aren't attracted to it. I brew my own EM with organic brown rice, koji rice, brown sugar and salt. I use a closed bucket, currently with additive free wood stove pellets in the bottom of my bucket to soak up the juices. it goes outside into stacking cedar rings instead of burying it because it's much easier to manage that way and we get lots of snow in the winter. During the winter months, I knock the snow off the lids, dump my bucket and use the finished bokashi as dirt from the bin next to it, to layer with. In the spring it melts and finishes just fine. At some point I am wanting to do an experiment with my home brew up against, homebrew without koji, home-flakes, water kefir, and store bought bran. I want to time lapse them side by side in gallon glass jars to see which one is the most effective.