symplastless wrote:
"symplastless" wrote in message
. ..

"kzin" wrote in message
...

On 18-Jan-2008, Johnny Borborigmi wrote:

Oh, so you really are not feeding the plant. Just applying
N-P-K.


Jesus SNIP Christ on a unicyle you guys anal much? Sorry I added
an
opinion....

it's just the one guy, either killfile him or just ignore him, or
find amusement in him

Ok, let me break out the "S" word - Stupid. In the USA people have
the right to be stupid. They can say and write stupid things.
E.g.,
Fertilizer is food, elements are nutrients, plants absorb
nutrients,
we have feeder roots, wood is dead, heartrot explains trees
response
to wounding, wound dressing stops rot, plant trees deep, put mulch
on the trunk of trees and good and deep, tree wrap prevents
sunscald and frost cracks, stake trees with wire in a hose, wood
is
dead. Heartrot explains decay. Flush cuts are correct. Wound
dressings stop rot. Nature is balanced. Fertilizer is food. Wetwood
is bad. Planting deeply is good. Rot is a major cause of failure.
Water causes decay. Insects and diseases are the major causes of
tree problems. There are at least a hundred more.



Myself, I am studying Advanced Tree Biology. In Advanced Tree
Biology we reframe from loose, sloppy terms. Why, for a better
understanding how the system works. If I see a fellow is so far
off
tract to call fertilizer plant food, I have enough care, concern,
time and passion to help that person better understand plants.
Again, some people fight to be stupid and spread it to others.
Mostly product pushers are to blame for the continued confussion.



I am very thankful that someone took the time to explain to me
things like fertilizers are not tree food.



Sorry for caring!




--
Sincerely,
John A. Keslick, Jr.
Consulting Arborist
http://home.ccil.org/~treeman
and www.treedictionary.com
Beware of so-called tree experts who do not understand tree
biology.
Storms, fires, floods, earthquakes, and volcanic eruptions keep
reminding us that we are not the boss.

I forgot one for Don Staples whuile I am at it.. Wood, e.g.,
cellulose, is bad for a forest so logging must be done in the name
of
forest health. How much more absurd can you possibly be?

Please tell me that English is not your native language.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

"someone" wrote in message
...

On 18-Jan-2008, "symplastless" wrote:

There are at least a hundred more.

please list them all for us but this time, for clarity, don't use any
spaces
or punctuation.

thank you.

I will work on it throughout my day. However, a very good book that you
can get your library to get is
100 Tree Myths by Shigo. It's about myths and half truths. The book is
only $14.00.
http://www.treedictionary.com/DICT2003/100MYTH.html

I will be working on others.


--
Sincerely,
John A. Keslick, Jr.
Consulting Arborist
http://home.ccil.org/~treeman
and www.treedictionary.com
Beware of so-called tree experts who do not understand tree biology.
Storms, fires, floods, earthquakes, and volcanic eruptions keep reminding us
that we are not the boss.

Johnny Borborigmi wrote in
:

On 2008-01-18 18:17:46 -0500, "symplastless"
said:

Wound dressings stop rot. Nature is balanced. Fertilizer
is food. Wetwood is bad. Planting deeply is good. Rot is a
major cause of failure. Water causes decay. Insects and
diseases are the major causes of tree problems. There are
at least a hundred more.



"Wound dressings" are no longer recommended, it ( as I
always believed) is not needed. Trees heal themselves fine
without our "help".

and planting *too* deeply will kill the tree.
while rot may be a major cause of failure, one shouldn't have
rot issues if one prunes correctly & doesn't plant too deep.

lee

"Johnny Borborigmi" wrote in message
...
On 2008-01-18 18:17:46 -0500, "symplastless"
said:

Wound dressings stop rot. Nature is balanced. Fertilizer is food.
Wetwood is bad. Planting deeply is good. Rot is a major cause of failure.
Water causes decay. Insects and diseases are the major causes of tree
problems. There are at least a hundred more.



"Wound dressings" are no longer recommended, it ( as I always believed) is
not needed. Trees heal themselves fine without our "help".


Trees heal wounds is another myth. Heal is a animal term often used with
plants and trees. Trees compartmentalize wounds.

Healing is regenerating term while trees generate and not regenerate.
http://www.treedictionary.com/DICT20...alization.html
Trees seal not heal. About trees not requiring our help. When a tree is
wounded, trees cannot restore injured tissues in their same spatial
position. Trees are generating systems. Animals are regenerating systems.
http://www.treedictionary.com/DICT20...ng_system.html
Trees form new cells in new spatial positions as trees are wounded
throughout their lives. Heal means to restore in the same spatial position.
Animals are regenerating systems that form new cells, and new cell parts in
the previously occupied spatial positions. Healing and when injured,
animals speed up their normal regenerating processes, and this is called
healing. When trees are injured and infected they chemically strengthen
their boundaries that resist spread of infections in wood at time of
wounding, - reaction
zone -(http://www.treedictionary.com/DICT20...tion_zone.html) and then
trees form another new anatomical and chemical boundary that separates the
infected wood from the new healthy wood that continues to form - barrier
zone (http://www.treedictionary.com/DICT20...rier_zone.html. This
defense process in trees is called compartmentalization.
CODIT is a model of Compartmentalization (see A New Tree Biology and the
many research papers listed in this book that support this concept).
http://www.treedictionary.com/DICT2003/C/CODIT.html

Adjustments to targets, is what the trees require. See "Tree Pruning"
http://www.treedictionary.com/DICT2003/tree_pruning/

More on generators and regenerators
Humans are regenerating systems. Trees are generating systems. Both
systems have good and bad points. generating systems do not heal wounds and
do not move. Generating systems are subject to the mass energy ratio. As
gens get larger in mass, energy needs increase as a parabolic curve. Gens
usually live longer than the regens. Regens move to avoid pain and
conflicts. Regens are almost entirely all symplast. Gens have a relatively
smaller symplast. Humans, regenerating systems. Trees, generating systems.
Humans come in groups but try to be individuals in families. Trees come in
groups, but very few ever reach maturity and reproduce. In the end, all are
recycled for new life as light drives the processes. Think about it.


--
Sincerely,
John A. Keslick, Jr.
Consulting Arborist
http://home.ccil.org/~treeman
and www.treedictionary.com
Beware of so-called tree experts who do not understand tree biology.
Storms, fires, floods, earthquakes, and volcanic eruptions keep reminding us
that we are not the boss.

"Billy" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Don Staples" wrote:

"Billy" wrote in message
...

Remind me Don. What was your last post that addressed a plant problem?
It seems your whole "raison d'etre" for being in gardening groups is to
attack John. It would be a great improvement if you could just throw in
a few tid-bits that are on topic. Consider starting a new NG called
rec.kill.john.kill, then you could rant to your hearts content and
still
be on topic.
--

Bug off, billy, when a tree question comes up, I will, till then fighting
deadwood is a reason to be here. Kind of like asking a back country
chemist
how to raise pine trees.

As usual Don, long on epithets and short on information. Shame on you
and the school you attended.

At the risk of irritating the fair poster from New South Wales, I find
you puzzling Don. What are you trying to advance in your incessant
attacks upon John? Trying to dehumanize John by calling him "deadwood"
is just school yard name calling at best and doesn't resolve anything.

So, basically , you're in this group to attack John. Is that right? If
that is it, then get a life.

If you don't approve of how John shares his knowledge then, answer them
yourself. If you're too lazy to respond, then let John answer them.
There are a lot of safety nets in these group: gardeners helping other
gardeners.

Or, is it that you think John is disseminating erroneous information? If
so, join the group and correct his information. He seems to have more
energy and time than most of us. Let's put him to work, spreading good
tree management information. Just correct him, if he jumps the tracks.
Then our little news groups can get back to tour peaceful ways of
contemplating the beauty in life.

--
His posted name translates to deadwood in English, did you not notice?
Besides, you are close to becoming the same pain in the ass that John is,
tho for different reasons. Since this is a free web site, and since John
and you continue your propaganda, it is fitting that anyone tells you to
stuff it, on occasions.

"symplastless" wrote in message
...

"Don Staples" wrote in message
...
"Billy" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Don Staples" wrote:

"Jangchub" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 18:53:55 -0500, "symplastless"
wrote:


I am more incline to listen to people who do not claim that
fertilizer,
elements alone, are food for autotrophs!

I am not familiar with the term autotrophs, but I do know orchids
(with the exception of some) are epiphytes and take nutrients from
air
and water which collects between the roots or hold tights and the
bark
of the tree the plant has adhered to.

I fertilize plants indoors using simple liquid seaweed and so far, so
good. I've had the same house plants for over a decade and made many
plants from their offshoots.

I also ran very large greenhouse operations and was a grower. But
what do I know. Rhetorical of course.


One heck of a lot more than a so called tree biologist.

Remind me Don. What was your last post that addressed a plant problem?
It seems your whole "raison d'etre" for being in gardening groups is to
attack John. It would be a great improvement if you could just throw in
a few tid-bits that are on topic. Consider starting a new NG called
rec.kill.john.kill, then you could rant to your hearts content and still
be on topic.
--

Bug off, billy, when a tree question comes up, I will, till then fighting
deadwood is a reason to be here. Kind of like asking a back country
chemist how to raise pine trees.

here is 2 tree questions.
You say "fighting deadwood" Very loose terms and not lucid. I never
heard of such a thing.
Please explain what you are saying.

Define "dead" =
Define "wood" =
See, wood is not static so it may be hard to define like humic acids. Its
constantly going through ecological stages.

Look up symplastless in your so called dictionary.

Never trust a so called consulting arboist/tree biologist that has never
studied biology.

"symplastless" wrote in message
. ..




Myself, I am studying Advanced Tree Biology. In Advanced Tree Biology we
reframe from loose, sloppy terms. Why, for a better understanding how the
system works. If I see a fellow is so far off tract to call fertilizer
plant food, I have enough care, concern, time and passion to help that
person better understand plants. Again, some people fight to be stupid
and spread it to others. Mostly product pushers are to blame for the
continued confussion.


Out of curiosity, where are you studying Advanced Tree Biology?

"symplastless" wrote in message
...

"symplastless" wrote in message


I forgot one for Don Staples whuile I am at it.. Wood, e.g., cellulose,
is bad for a forest so logging must be done in the name of forest health.
How much more absurd can you possibly be?

Uh, could you possibly try and explain what your talking about? Where as
logging has something to do with cellulose (i.e., that's what is harvested)
where did I, or any one else, ever say cellulose (what a forest is) is bad
for a forest? You really need to take your meds.

Beware of so-called tree experts/consulting arborists/tree biologists who
do not understand tree biology, because they never studied biology.

"Don Staples" wrote in message
...
"symplastless" wrote in message
. ..




Myself, I am studying Advanced Tree Biology. In Advanced Tree Biology we
reframe from loose, sloppy terms. Why, for a better understanding how
the system works. If I see a fellow is so far off tract to call
fertilizer plant food, I have enough care, concern, time and passion to
help that person better understand plants. Again, some people fight to
be stupid and spread it to others. Mostly product pushers are to blame
for the continued confussion.


Out of curiosity, where are you studying Advanced Tree Biology?

It is an educational course on DVD. Not available to the public yet. I
anticipate it will be soon. I study where ever I get the chance.

If you are interested Don, let me know and I will place a request for the
latter. I am actually working on a table of contents for the program.

Good question.

--
Sincerely,
John A. Keslick, Jr.
Consulting Arborist
http://home.ccil.org/~treeman
and www.treedictionary.com
Beware of so-called tree experts who do not understand tree biology.
Storms, fires, floods, earthquakes, and volcanic eruptions keep reminding us
that we are not the boss.

"Don Staples" wrote in message
...
"Billy" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Don Staples" wrote:

"Billy" wrote in message
...

Remind me Don. What was your last post that addressed a plant problem?
It seems your whole "raison d'etre" for being in gardening groups is
to
attack John. It would be a great improvement if you could just throw
in
a few tid-bits that are on topic. Consider starting a new NG called
rec.kill.john.kill, then you could rant to your hearts content and
still
be on topic.
--

Bug off, billy, when a tree question comes up, I will, till then
fighting
deadwood is a reason to be here. Kind of like asking a back country
chemist
how to raise pine trees.

As usual Don, long on epithets and short on information. Shame on you
and the school you attended.

At the risk of irritating the fair poster from New South Wales, I find
you puzzling Don. What are you trying to advance in your incessant
attacks upon John? Trying to dehumanize John by calling him "deadwood"
is just school yard name calling at best and doesn't resolve anything.

So, basically , you're in this group to attack John. Is that right? If
that is it, then get a life.

If you don't approve of how John shares his knowledge then, answer them
yourself. If you're too lazy to respond, then let John answer them.
There are a lot of safety nets in these group: gardeners helping other
gardeners.

Or, is it that you think John is disseminating erroneous information? If
so, join the group and correct his information. He seems to have more
energy and time than most of us. Let's put him to work, spreading good
tree management information. Just correct him, if he jumps the tracks.
Then our little news groups can get back to tour peaceful ways of
contemplating the beauty in life.

--
His posted name translates to deadwood in English, did you not notice?
Besides, you are close to becoming the same pain in the ass that John is,
tho for different reasons. Since this is a free web site, and since John
and you continue your propaganda, it is fitting that anyone tells you to
stuff it, on occasions.



Don, you make alot of noise. You refuse to define your terms so no one has
a clue what the heck you are writing about. Sad for sure. Oh well, I will
pray for you.


--
Sincerely,
John A. Keslick, Jr.
Consulting Arborist
http://home.ccil.org/~treeman
and www.treedictionary.com
Beware of so-called tree experts who do not understand tree biology.
Storms, fires, floods, earthquakes, and volcanic eruptions keep reminding us
that we are not the boss.

"Don Staples" wrote in message
...
"symplastless" wrote in message
...

"Don Staples" wrote in message
...
"Billy" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Don Staples" wrote:

"Jangchub" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 18:53:55 -0500, "symplastless"
wrote:


I am more incline to listen to people who do not claim that
fertilizer,
elements alone, are food for autotrophs!

I am not familiar with the term autotrophs, but I do know orchids
(with the exception of some) are epiphytes and take nutrients from
air
and water which collects between the roots or hold tights and the
bark
of the tree the plant has adhered to.

I fertilize plants indoors using simple liquid seaweed and so far,
so
good. I've had the same house plants for over a decade and made
many
plants from their offshoots.

I also ran very large greenhouse operations and was a grower. But
what do I know. Rhetorical of course.


One heck of a lot more than a so called tree biologist.

Remind me Don. What was your last post that addressed a plant problem?
It seems your whole "raison d'etre" for being in gardening groups is to
attack John. It would be a great improvement if you could just throw in
a few tid-bits that are on topic. Consider starting a new NG called
rec.kill.john.kill, then you could rant to your hearts content and
still
be on topic.
--

Bug off, billy, when a tree question comes up, I will, till then
fighting deadwood is a reason to be here. Kind of like asking a back
country chemist how to raise pine trees.

here is 2 tree questions.
You say "fighting deadwood" Very loose terms and not lucid. I never
heard of such a thing.
Please explain what you are saying.

Define "dead" =
Define "wood" =
See, wood is not static so it may be hard to define like humic acids.
Its constantly going through ecological stages.

Look up symplastless in your so called dictionary.

Never trust a so called consulting arboist/tree biologist that has never
studied biology.


DO NOT BELIEVE A WORD I SAY!!!!!!! Believe because you see it for yourself.

A requirement to study and understand tree biology does include tree
biology.

Are we supposed to trust Don Staples?

--
Sincerely,
John A. Keslick, Jr.
Consulting Arborist
http://home.ccil.org/~treeman
and www.treedictionary.com
Beware of so-called tree experts who do not understand tree biology.
Storms, fires, floods, earthquakes, and volcanic eruptions keep reminding us
that we are not the boss.

"Don Staples" wrote in message
...
"symplastless" wrote in message
...

"symplastless" wrote in message


I forgot one for Don Staples whuile I am at it.. Wood, e.g., cellulose,
is bad for a forest so logging must be done in the name of forest health.
How much more absurd can you possibly be?

Uh, could you possibly try and explain what your talking about? Where as
logging has something to do with cellulose (i.e., that's what is
harvested) where did I, or any one else, ever say cellulose (what a forest
is) is bad for a forest? You really need to take your meds.

many projects on the Allegheny National Forest are planned under the false
premise that logging helps increase the health of a forest.

It probably would not take long to review your website and find the latter.

Your site here for starters, give me a chance and I will find more examples.
http://www.livingston.net/dstaples/Services/salvage.htm

please explain what biological benefit logging has for forest health?

--
Sincerely,
John A. Keslick, Jr.
Consulting Arborist
http://home.ccil.org/~treeman
and www.treedictionary.com
Beware of so-called tree experts who do not understand tree biology.
Storms, fires, floods, earthquakes, and volcanic eruptions keep reminding us
that we are not the boss.



Beware of so-called tree experts/consulting arborists/tree biologists who
do not understand tree biology, because they never studied biology.

"Jangchub" wrote in message
...
Sorry to post on top, but your reply is quite lengthy. I didn't see
anywhere in your post which tells me anything about how orchids are
autotrophs. In fact, you went off into trees again, and mycorrhizae.

Are they autotrophs or heterotrophs? Please explain. I just know the crowd
out native stinkweeds.

Yes, trees indeed to depend greatly on the fungal mat, certainly in
harsh conditions, but mycorrhizae does not replace the function of
root hairs, it makes root hairs more efficient. The drip line of a
tree is most important because it's generally where the root hairs are
located. Trees indeed to depend on elements, and elements are made
available by micro and macro orgnanisms in the soil. I "feed" the
soil, not the tree.

I believe you do.

However, don't mistake my words to mean that
trees make their own food, they do not.

Explain what photosynthesis is?

Soil biota takes plant litter
and turns it into a form which gives rise to uptake by root hairs.

Trees do not uptake carbohydrates or can you feed a tree carbohydrates. It
you could you would put the sun out of business.

Fungal mat is something which extends this area beyond the drip line
making elements and water through capillary action available to the
root hairs. Still, it's the root hairs which are the uptake of a
tree, not mycorrhizae.

Without mycorrhizae it would be difficult for many species to uptake
phosphates.

How does a fungal mat found IN soil do anything for an epiphyte?


I do not understand the question. What is a epiphyte?


--
Sincerely,
John A. Keslick, Jr.
Consulting Arborist
http://home.ccil.org/~treeman
and www.treedictionary.com
Beware of so-called tree experts who do not understand tree biology.
Storms, fires, floods, earthquakes, and volcanic eruptions keep reminding us
that we are not the boss.



On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 13:41:08 -0500, "symplastless"
wrote:

Autotrophs

Very good question. People of course may disagree with my definition.
That
is fine. I will provide you with my definition so you will understand
what
I mean. If somebody else uses the word, you may want to ask them to
define
so you understand what they mean.

Autotrophs make their own food. Heterotrophs have to have it made for
them.

Not the last word on the topic. Most trees and plants are autotrophs.
E.g., An oak tree. An oak tree absorbs (not like a Bounty paper towel
though - that was just pointed out to me) essential elements dissolved in
water with non-woody roots and the help of organs, for example,
mycorrhizae
and root hairs.

Mycorrhizae are composite organs consisting of tree tissue and fungi.

http://www.treedictionary.com/DICT20...corrhizae.html

Root hairs are the extension of a single cell.

A root hair is the extension of a single epidermal cell, epidermal, which
means skin.

http://www.treedictionary.com/DICT20...oot_hairs.html

Oak trees with the water, essential elements and trapped sun light energy
manufacture their food with the process called photosynthesis. Generally
speaking, after many processes glucose (tree food) is manufactured. One
reaction is the glucose is transformed into starch and stored in living
parenchyma. Trees only store starch in living cells. They load, store
and
then use - water, elements and glucose as it is manufactured. The
collection of living cells is called the symplast. Most of these words
are
in my dictionary. I call this type of organism a autotroph.

Even though the bag in the store says tree food, it is not tree food.

Elements are very important. That's why we call them essential elements.

Elements can be found here.

http://www.webelements.com/

The most recognized essential elements for trees are -

C; H; N; O; P; K; S; Mg; Ni; Fe; Ca; Zn; Mo; Mn; B; Cl; Cu

Different species of plants require different amounts of the latter.
E.g.,
legumes such as black locust, coffee tree have a unique requirement for
cobalt. I think it is pertaining to nitrogen fixation. A new topic to
me,
i.e., the requirement of cobalt for legumes.



Now, there are, as always in nature, exceptions. E.g., The Ghost Flower.
http://www.treedictionary.com/DICT20...flowers-1.html

It is a plant with no chlorophyll. It cannot photosynthesis and
manufacture
its own food or nutrients. It gets its required food, nutrients etc., by
way of the bicarbohydrate transfer of plants. It then would fall under
the
heterotroph category. We cannot provide food for the ghost flower. It
is
manufactured by other plants and then transferred. What would you call
the
host to an autotroph?



Animals such as humans are heterotrophs, us, like the Ghost Flower, have
to
have something or someone else manufacture our food for us. We cannot
photosynthesis to manufacture our required food.



Glucose is the international biological currency. I require it, you
require
it, other animals and plants require it. "All" is not a term that can be
used often. I am thinking, just a thought, that all living organisms
living
on Earth require glucose. Without it we would not be here.

"enigma" wrote in message
. ..
Johnny Borborigmi wrote in
:

On 2008-01-18 18:17:46 -0500, "symplastless"
said:

Wound dressings stop rot. Nature is balanced. Fertilizer
is food. Wetwood is bad. Planting deeply is good. Rot is a
major cause of failure. Water causes decay. Insects and
diseases are the major causes of tree problems. There are
at least a hundred more.



"Wound dressings" are no longer recommended, it ( as I
always believed) is not needed. Trees heal themselves fine
without our "help".

and planting *too* deeply will kill the tree.
while rot may be a major cause of failure, one shouldn't have
rot issues if one prunes correctly & doesn't plant too deep.

lee
Thanks for the info!
Bless you bless you bless you!


--
Sincerely,
John A. Keslick, Jr.
Consulting Arborist
http://home.ccil.org/~treeman
and www.treedictionary.com
Beware of so-called tree experts who do not understand tree biology.
Storms, fires, floods, earthquakes, and volcanic eruptions keep reminding us
that we are not the boss.

"symplastless" wrote in message
. ..
Don, you do not understand or know how to work with nature. You work
against nature. Why would there be a requirement to "salvage" cellulose,
or shall I lucidly say, "ROB" the forest, of much required cellulose? And
you say you are a forester. Maybe I am a forester.


No, you are a freaking nut job.

Beware of so-called tree experts who never studied biology.