We are located on what is known as a drumlin.  24" of soil more or less,
hard-pan and then gravel.  There are stones through the profile from
softball size to ones that will fill the bed of a pickup truck.  I often
need an excavator for some of the stones when we are getting ready to
plant.  I like the ripper idea although the less I disturb the soil the
fewer stones I have to contend with.  The large Best Angle stakes have
worked well so far and drive in well due to their small size but I am
getting nervous about their longevity.  The longest they have been in the
ground is nine years.

Art Kelly

On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 7:51 PM, Fleming, William <[email protected]> wrote:

> How about dynamite or a jack hammer?
>
> Only thing I can think of would be to rent a Cat before you plant and pull
> a ripper down the tree row before planting.
> This would also help the trees by providing better drainage.
>
>
>
> ________________________________________
> From: [email protected] [[email protected]] On
> Behalf Of Arthur Kelly [[email protected]]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2010 6:14 PM
> To: Apple-Crop
> Subject: Apple-Crop: trellis posts
>
>  Does anyone have any experience or suggestions for pounding or setting
> line posts for a tree support system into hard-pan?  We have 24-30 inches of
> soil and then hard-pan.  Some years ago we tried to auger in posts and had
> great difficulty penetrating the hard-pan.  I'm feeling the posts should go
> in at least 36 inches with 8-9 ft above ground.  We have been using Best
> Angle stakes but I'm hearing they aren't that long lived due to rust and
> bending.
>
> Art Kelly
> Kelly Orchards
> Acton, ME
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> The 'Apple-Crop' LISTSERV is sponsored by the Virtual Orchard
> <http://www.virtualorchard.net> and managed by Win Cowgill and Jon
> Clements <[email protected]>.
>
> Apple-Crop is not moderated. Therefore, the statements do not represent
> "official" opinions and the Virtual Orchard takes no responsibility for
> the content.
>
>
>
>
>
>

Reply via email to