My point was, the ideas you presented aren't ideas that haven't been regularly examined in the light of how they fit with various approaches to gardening in containers. I agree that there are many reasons growers might choose to grow in something fast/cheap/easy, but not very many of those reasons would be related to what the plant would prefer. Surprisingly though, you can make the 5:1:1 mix for about half of what it costs to buy an off the shelf medium in a bag. FWIW, I realize that a good % of growers put 'convenience' at the top of the list of reasons why they might choose a particular medium, and I recognize that as a perfectly valid reason for making the choice. It's not reason enough for me, but I wouldn't presume to know best how to order a stranger's priorities. Obviously, I think the reasons for using a very well-aerated medium, even if it takes effort to make far outweigh reasons for using something like Miracle-Gro media because the opportunity for plants to realize their potential are MUCH better. When you quoted Jodi, you left out the subsequent qualification of her own statement, which cast an entirely different light on what might seem overly broad out of context, but with context - seems reasonable. I also tend to agree, and my own practical experience supports the observation, that substrates with a dominant fraction of peat are much more difficult for the hobby grower to consistently bring along healthy material in. Reinforcing that thought are the thousands of growers who arrive on forum shores marooned by their soil choice, which is usually a bagged mix based on peat and/or other fine particulates. Using pudding in comparison to water-retentive media and asking how much perlite it would take to make pudding drain well is provides a vivid image for the mind's eye, and the comparison is valid enough that I see it used regularly to stress a point ....... and the accompanying qualification of the subsequent explanation is always focused on science & the laws of physics. How thoroughly we qualify the things we say is what people use to determine our credibility. There is no anti-peat hysteria. We work hard to define our experience with media that use peat and other fine particulates as the primary fraction of what we're using. We also express our experiences using media with low volumes of peat and high volumes of other coarse material. Generally, media with lots of coarse material and small volumes of peat shine in comparison to media with lots of peat and little or no coarse ingredients. Finally, I would just say that when it comes to theorizing about soil structure and related topics, in theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is. The comments I offer are indeed born of practice. Thanks for providing reason to make me exercise the noodle. Al

I spend most of my GW time on the container and other forums, but today I'm just bored - roaming around, and stumbled on this post. I'm not sure about what controversy (peat) you're referring to, but in raised beds, you're certainly not relegated to the use of sphagnum peat- especially if you're concerned about the controversy over the supposed 'nonrenewability' of peat. Reed/sedge or Michigan peat is is an excellent product for gardens and raised beds. I would bet that the "Beats Peat" product is coir, too. That it is or isn't better than sphagnum peat is open to plenty of debate. I don't think there is enough difference between the two, when used in the garden, to bother mounting a 'for' or 'against' argument. Reed/sedge/Michigan peat is a sludgy mix of partially decomposed - you guessed it - reeds, sedges, and lakeside grasses, and probably enough aquatic animal skeletons/shells to supply a good bit of mineral nutrition as well. Mixed with a healthy amount of composted or partially composted pine bark and some native soil or sand, it will yield an inexpensive, rich, black, free-draining soil that looks like this: I've grown in this soil for years & find it extremely productive and full of life. If you have more interest & want to discuss it further, let me know - I don't come around the SF forum often. Al

David- I am also considering doing a small side business to see if that's something I want to do before I get too crazy. I looked for your email address but didn't see it. I'm not sure if it had to do with changes that Garden Web is going through. I am trying to find the most cost effective method for growing trees in the container as well. Al's mix calls for more pine bark and less perlite (or others) I might go in that direction to cut down cost on turface, etc esp when I have to grow many trees. Cedar fibers seem to be very attractive alternative to peat moss (5 dollars for 40lbs or 1.5 cubic feet which is somewhat tightly packed in but fluffy and light when opened) I do not have many 5g rootmaker container. They are more of for personal use but I have 75 rootmaker 1g container that I am going to transfer to from rootmaker tray (18 cell that is (3.125" x 3.125" x 4"- fits in 10x20" flat tray). I have no intention of selling trees in the rootmaker container so I will repot them to larger container, probably 3 or 5g Sunleaves white grow bag for sale. They are pretty cheap. I do have those accelerator starter pots as well but a bit messy due to more holes all around. Not sure which one is better at this point. Everything will get transferred to cheap containers for sale. I am all about developing proper root system at least right at the beginning. I think it is okay to grow in the larger regular containers as long as they are sold quickly. I think the large or rather right word 'medium' sized pine bark is fine for 5g or larger. I mixed them with fine pine bark mix and it seemed to drain fast. I have seen this mix at some nurseries. You just have to make sure no fine particles are in the mix. That's probably the key. Where do you get perlite that cheap? I need plenty for seeds to grow in. it would be 50/50 of perlite and screened pine bark (or cedar fiber-another experiment) Which coconut fiber product did you get? I looked at CocoChoice website and I see that they have choices. I have no idea what to get since I've never bought one. How much are they? I emailed them where I could find them up here. Thanks for letting me know about this. It sounds like good alternative to peat moss. I'd be happy to give you montezuma cypress seeds but they all are in the fridge undergoing cold moist stratification but I will get you some next fall if you want. I would love to have Monterrey oak acorns. I looked everywhere for them but I only saw little trees. I have one growing in the backyard. It will be years before I get some acorns from it. I wouldn't also mind Texas Ash and Texas native Bigtooth maple seeds if you ever come across them down there. I can also give you Mexican Blue oak acorns and possibly Canyby-Shumard hybrid oak acorns. It looks like Shumard oak and it seemed to stay green well into late December. They are located in Marble Fall. In 2005 when it was 21*F there during early December and we went there for Christmas. I noticed this red oak with green leaves while pretty much all other red oak have turned brown or lost leaves. Hopefully, they will have plenty of acorns by Thanksgiving... I am sure I missed something. It's hard to keep my thoughts together when I have 2 years old daughter running wild in the house.

2 things cause the price to go up: 1 - Inflation (how long ago, and were wood products also cheaper back then?) 2 - DEMAND! Like I said, it IS renewable, but it grows very slowly, so only so much can be harvested each year. Therefore, if people buy a whole lot of it the price must necessarily increase until an equilibrium between price and demand is reached (at $5 a bag it will sell out and the harvesters cannot produce anymore, at $50 no one will buy it; at $15 ($10 in NY) the price is right and demand meets the supply). It is a commodity - just like corn or soybeans - the prices rise and fall based on demand and supply (affected by the environment or political actions). The increase in price is good for the environment (my main argument in my first two long posts), because it forces consumers to opt for more RAPIDLY renewable soil amendments. My argument above (and why I support regulated, responsible harvesting of peat moss) is that the "politically correct" "peat moss is non-renewable" argument can have a detrimental effect on the environment because it may cause DEMAND to FALL until the PRICE DROPS to meet lower demand, which in turn actually will INCREASE DEMAND at the lower price (if peat moss becomes substantially cheaper than rapidly renewable sources). It is what I call the Walmart Effect - prices fall so low that consumption increases above necessary levels. For example, if quality nurseries stop carrying peat moss for political reasons, then big box stores will buy it up even cheaper and even more people (the masses who shop at box stores and do not care about renewability) will demand it and even more will be sold overall. Normally, without such unnatural interference in the Free Market, the price will find equilibrium. That is where it is now ($10-$15 a bale). Peat moss harvesters have invested too much capital to just stop harvesting when prices fall, so to make up for any shortfall caused by lower prices they will harvest even more (perhaps illegally) to make up the difference. This is why a lot of crops in the USA are destroyed - to keep prices high (this is the government's fault for paying farmers when they lose money). Right now demand meets (the sustainably harvested) supply, and at that level the cost per bale is $10-$15. It sounds like you were using a ton of the stuff in the past - that is actually very bad for your soil and plants; using wood products and compost is much healthier. Peat moss DOES have a legitimate use, just not as the MAIN ingredient of any soil mix.