Kris Nelson

John Wolfram wrote:Sure it would be better if the branches hadn't been cut, but in a few years time the effects should be minimal.

Alright, so I would rub off the buds growing vertically, and keep the ones growing more horizontally to get the proper primary scaffold angles, correct?

John Wolfram wrote:Looks like a pretty nice tree to me, although the buds pushing out already is a tad concerning. If it was my tree, I'd probably lop off the top just above where the white tag is and see how it grows.

Thank you for confirming what I thought, sort of. I'm new to this, but it seemed the most logical.

Won't the new scaffolding be bad with the existing properly directed scaffolds creating new primary scaffolds off in odd directions? It wouldn't be better to have primary scaffolds starting off from the root trunk, not these very short branches?

Appreciate the response :) Peace.

Hi, I have another issue with one of the trees I ordered. It's a Sugar Pearls white apricot, on a Myrobalan semi-dwarf root. The problem is that the trunk is like 4x bigger than the other trees so it seems much older, and there were already several branches on it that would have been the scaffold, but they were all cut back for the shipping.



Is it just me, or are these branches now useless and I have to chop the top off completely to actually grow proper scaffolds? It's not like I can just grow scaffolds in other directions from these short nubs, there is no room for them to properly grow in my opinion.

Also, is this acceptable for a purchased tree? It seems a bit odd to send such a big tree with scaffold branches pruned to a useless length.

I would be cutting the top off and regrowing scaffolds... but it seems a bit old and thick to be starting over with primary scaffolds...

What do you think about this tree? What should I do with it? Refund?

Thanks!

There is no graft, these are standard trees.

I ordered a bunch of trees and received them Monday. I got around to planting 2 today. When I went to plant them, I inspected them and saw some significant damage.

How bad is it?

Is this standard in ordering fruit trees?

Should I ask for a refund?

Russian Pear: True and Faithful

- gap / notch in base of trunk
- when I apply pressure, I can see the opening give
- given this gap, I'm pretty sure this tree will snap under larger weight and with wind



Russian Pear: Loving

- damage to main root / torn root?
- will this develop root infections?

Anne Miller wrote:

Maybe the poor drainage has something to do with something else?  Maybe your water table?

Here are some threads that you or others might find interesting:

https://permies.com/t/63914/Soil

https://permies.com/t/114886/Jar-test-Silt-Clay#937313

https://permies.com/t/70302/reading-soil-lab

Yes, my hardpan is at 12 inches.

John C Daley wrote:What are you trying to do with the soil?

Eat it ;) Just kidding, grow food to eat. Can you see the sand from the silt easily?

I did two soil jar tests. One was from a bunch of dug up soil I dried in the sun, then I took the easiest parts to grumble and press through a mesh strainer before jarring and adding water (1). The other was more of a slice under the looser top soil and represented more of the full profile down to 10-12inches deep from the top of the hole (2). I also didn't let this one dry, but shook, then crumbled and mashed with my hands in water that I put back in the jar. I may also have taken more from the bottom... so not a fair slice...

I also did a small sample from 4inches deep for a soil test kit with the powder you shake to get colors (3). This also was dried first then crushed with a spoon before jarring.

Here are the results:

1)



Lowest marker - 1 minute mark
Highest marker - 2 hour mark

Both layers seem to have settled down lower though than the original marks.

2)



The label has 1 minute and 2 hour marked, with the lowest point is what seems to be more sandy the next day. It seems to have settled more and the sand is lower than the 1m measurement, and the silt is lower than the first 2h measurement indicates...

3)



I seem to have very fine sand that settles down after 1 minute. Then after 2 hours there is lots of silt. In the deepest dug up soil there is more clay, but not in the more shallow parts. I find it hard to see the sand and silt layers separate since the sand is very fine and seems to blend from one layer to the next. I'm not even sure any of that can be even considered sand... In (1) it just looks the same going up to the little clay at the top...

(1)
sand 39%
silt 55%
clay 6%

(2)
sand 33%
silt 42%
clay 23%

(3)
sand 27%
silt 58%
clay 15%

It was hard to distinguish the sand vs silt layers, but that's what I came up with.

Looking at (1) and (3), it seems that my soil is silty loam. In (2) it's loam. At least according to the discernment I did for the layers and the charts to find out of type of soil according to percentage of layers.



I thought I had clay due to the poor drainage, but it looks like it's mostly silt, with little sand or the sand that's there is very fine as well. When I get to 10inches or so, then more clay shows up in the hardpan that doesn't drain.

Michael Cox wrote:I think in part this comes down to what you intend to use the area for.

If an orchard, where you will tolerate some grass, then cardboard and woodchip sounds appropriate. It would shift the balance towards soil that favours fruit trees over grass.

On the other hand, if you want to plant an annual veggie garden, I would consider woodchips to be inappropriate. It takes quite a while for the grass layer to start decomposing, and fresh woodchips are a less than ideal growing medium.

I have done both, and now prefer to start new areas off by tilling. I then maintain them by top dressing with well rotted compost/chicken coop bedding, combined with light hoe work and occasional spot weeding.

Fresh woodchips are reserved for fruit trees and paths.

It's both. Where I will plant veggies, I will have raised beds or a hugels to start, and not directly planting into the native soil. I can till and plant covercrops/greenmanure, but I'm not sure that's the best option as it disturbs the existing work done by roots and worms, and will probably kill worms with the tiller. Some raking out of roots seems better if I don't just try to mow/weed wack and then plant other things that grow faster than the grass to smother them out. The buckwheat grew fast last year where I tilled, but it turned to muddy soft mushy soil after rain came.

I also think tilling will get more water absorbed in the tilled area quicker and just stay in that aerated soil area and make it more muddy, rather than move downhill quicker if left as it is. If anyone has experience or knowledge on this, let me know ;)

Douglas Alpenstock wrote:Hi Kris! If you can leave the grass in place, that's less work. Though personally I would be inclined to turn the grass and other rough organic matter into that soil, just to help it breathe and drain. And then build beds on top of that.

But a critical question: what kind of grass do you have? Have you successfully smothered it before (even by accident)? The rhizomes of an invasive grass like quackgrass will travel horizontally for a long distance to find a crack it can grow through.

I think I'm going to just leave it, it has some root and worm work to loosen it up those first 2 inches. I'll cover or rake out/pull out some parts and plant some cover crops/green manure for slice and drop mulch to add organic matter. I don't know what the grass is, it gets like 5-6ft tall is all I know, with very small seeds. I'll grow some fast covercrops to outcompete it