First, I think that most reading this are laboring under the impression that if you change to a fertilizer with a lower N content, say a 2:1:2 or a 1:1:2 ratio, that you're automatically going to see a difference in the plant's growth habit, but that's not necessarily so. Second, let's examine just how important reducing N is (to fruit/blooms) when using bark-based container soils. When plants are growing well, they tolerate a higher concentration of salts/fertilizers in the soil (solution). Since plants tend to take what they need and leave the rest, fertilizing to meet the plants N needs with a fertilizer that has a lower % of N (than 3:1:2) accomplishes 1 thing - it simply supplies too much P and K for normal growth. Example: If you were using a 3:1:2 ratio fertilizer to meet the plants N needs, all 3 of the primary macros should be reaching deficiency levels at the same time, so when you fertilize again, the soluble salts level is as low as it can be & the plant puts on growth at it's normal rate. If you switch to a 2:1:2 ratio fertilizer (if you can find one) because it has less N, N will be the first element that becomes deficient. If you're fertilizing on a schedule that ensures an adequate N supply, or if you're watching plant color and fertilize as soon as the older leaves lighten, what have you changed? Nothing except you're supplying extra P & K the plant can't use. IOW - it's the GROWER that supplies N at deficiency levels to induce certain growth characteristics (a reduction in vegetative growth or bloom/fruit induction), not the fertilizer. Better than the above scenario would be to fertilize using your 3:1:2 ratio at reduced rates and supplementing the K with Pro-TeKt 0-0-3. You might say that solves the N and K issue, but now there isn't enough P, but the chemical characteristics of bark are: Very high in P and good amounts of K. Usually deficient Ca, Mg, and S. Potentially low in B and Zn, and a potentially high Fe:Mn ratio. The "high in P" is why bark-based soils and reduced rates of 3:1:2 ratio fertilizers + supplemental K work very well. To be honest, if any of you want to go to a 2:1:2 ratio fertilizer and can find one, let us know what it is, because it would be easier than using 3:1:2 ratios & supplementing the K, and maybe 1:1:1 ratios are 'close enough, but again, the grower still has the responsibility of seeing the N supply is limited, or changing fertilizers is for naught. The other thread had something about peppers that hadn't set fruit, & something about tomatoes, too. Here's a picture of my tomatoes this year I'm happy with how healthy (haven't used any fungicides at all this year) they are & how much fruit they have on them. The two containers on the far right are part of a test I'm doing for the Ups-A-Daisy Company's inserts, as are the two mixed floral plantings in the foreground. So far, I've only used FP 9-3-6 on all of these plants from the day I potted them. I don't think I'll switch to a reduced amount of N this year - it doesn't seem warranted. I didn't put in any peppers this year (my brother has tons) but I did put an ornamental in a pot, and that seems to have produced ample fruit with the 3:1:2 fertilizer And here's one just for fun - all FP 9-3-6 and no shortage of blooms, but I prolly should have deadheaded the cals before I took the pic. FWIW, I think we're seeing some N immobilization when we use the 5:1:1 mix, which is why we probably don't see the runaway foliage in the veggie crops we worry so much about. Just a thought. I hope I made sense. I can hardly keep my eyes open (up late reading last night & up early this AM) and had some difficulty keeping it together as I muddled through this. ;o) Al

The Yoshino Cherry was planted two summers ago, it did nicely last summer, but did have some issues with an amber colored sap near the base of the trunk. However, in March, during our brief warm-up, it began to bud and leaf out; then got smacked with temps in the teens and ice. It has endured and come through pretty rough winters (near zero temps, snow, ice and wind); it sits out on the east end of our backyard w/little protection. Should I let it "rest" until next Spring, and then see? Now, the patio peach has tons of suckers doing well, but nothing alive at the top of the trunk; it just seems strange to me how they graft those; they can't possibly be that hardy, but they say they are. Thanks again, Stacey.

I assume you are looking for an ornamental grass since this is the forum for that. Some varieties that grow less than 2' tall that you might want to consider are: -- Hamelyn, Moudry and Little Bunny fountain grass -- Blue fescue -- Miscanthus sinensi Little Kitten and Adagio (borderline, might get taller than 2') -- Blue oat grass -- Various Carex varieties These are all attractive varieties that I have grown in my garden. Blue oat grass needs very good drainage. The Miscanthus varieties I listed might be a little larger than you want, but are very attractive and grow well in full sun. Little Kitten's leaves are kind of rough, but Adagio's are smoother. Adagio is my personal favorite Miscanthus variety -- it has a very nice form and color and blooms heavily, but doesn't reseed.

Maack, yes, European beech is a cinch to deal with compared to that finickiest of all N. temperate zone species-American beech. Ed, all beech cultivars to date are of European-not American-beech. That is, of common occurrence. David, many areas east of the Mississippi have undergone such a transition. Many areas were logged and cleardd witht eh assumption that agriculture was their future, only to find that rocky, acidic, droughty, or other soil or climate characteristics made that unprofitable. A common pattern then was one of owners giving up land for back taxes, with the then newly-formed govt. agencies stepping in to deal with the huge amount of tax-delinquent land on hand. Hence federal and state forests, etc. Many of these places are magnificent areas now, but were forsaken by human folly on the way to getting that way.