I don't do orchids, but the mix they're grown in is always plenty airy. I try to limit my mixes for things like veggies & display containers to no more than 15% peat (most of my soils for woody plants have no peat and only 1/3 is pine or fir bark - the rest is inorganic particles), but soils are about compromise. By that, I mean if you can't or don't want to water every day, it's a given you'll have to grow in something that holds more water & less air. That's for you to decide. ;o) All I do is try to relay the relative importance of the physical characteristics of the soil proper, and the choice or combination of ingredients that goes into it. All soils have inadequacies; none are perfect. Some growers can adapt to them because they have enough info/knowledge to recognize the shortcomings. That you have concerns and are aware of what constitutes a good container soil is half the battle in heading off potential problems. My bet is you'll do just fine. Al

Thanks everyone for giving me your ideas. I don't know what kind of clay I have. I only know it's gray, compacted and when we are really dry it literally turns into a cement like material. We bought a shed recently and needed to install those trailer ties to anchor it down. We were trying to dig the holes during a drought. My husband managed to get down about 3 or 4 inches with the post hole digger (remember he was digging these holes right up next to the building so there was no "getting his muscles into it") After getting that far he got a large screw driver and a hammer and tried chiseling with little success. Finally I got the bright idea to put water in the holes. That helped out a lot. Yes Karen, I will probably purchase a wildflower mix suited for my area from a reputable source. Since I am the one doing the bulk of the work on this one, I think I will give the leaves a shot. Hauling sand is just more work than this old bod can handle especially since I have 10 cubic yards of mulch to move. Ugh. Thanks again for all the wonderful suggestions.

Hi, Tom After I scanned your article, the first thing I did was follow the link to the OSU research you cited. As I read through it, I didn't see anything different than what is contained in an article I wrote back in '94. The wording and discussion is actually so close to what I wrote, that I tried to find out whether that article was written after mine. I think that initially, adding a small fraction of perlite pumice, Turface, things that you usually consider as drainage material to a large fraction of peat, increases drainage, but only until the peat compacts/nests around the 'drainage' material. Perlite is normally included in commercially packaged soils at less than 10% of the whole. Doubling its presence isn't going to increase drainage or reduce the ht of the PWT, though it will reduce the total volume of water the medium is capable of holding. Illustration: start with 10 parts of fine sand that supports a 4" PWT. Add 1 part of BBs. Does the flow through rate change? How about the ht of the PWT or volume of air in the medium? Technically, on a per volume basis, there is a decrease in the % of air in the sand/BB mix compared to only the sand w/o BBs. All that changes is the 'volume' of water in the PWT. Peat may be slightly different because it's interlocking fibers may not compact to the degree that sand will, but remember that the fiberosity exhibits the same properties whether or not there is drainage material present. If peat compacts when there is no drainage material, it will still compact when there is. In order for drainage material to improve flow-through rates, it has to affect gravitational flow potential. In order to do that, it must great pockets where water molecules can adhere to themselves, increasing their collective mass. These large droplets then depend on cohesion to keep them together as gravity acts to move them down and out of the container. If drainage material can't create 'puddles and channels' within the media, it's not going to be effective. I want to comment on some of the things you mentioned as though we're conversing, so I'll make your offerings bold and my reply will be in default type: Drainage though is a bit of a false goal, or a goal based on an assumption. What we really want is to partially dry out the core of the mix at intervals between watering, which prevents that sour core-rot where roots won't live. My focus has always been on aeration, though I recognize the direct/converse relationship between drainage and aeration. The soils I build and suggest are based on the assurance that they will retain ample volumes of air for extended periods - that they are structurally sound. Of course, drainage automatically comes along for the ride. I don't think I would say "What we really want is to partially dry out the core of the mix at intervals between watering". My view is that there is no 'core' to speak of, because water that is not tightly bound to or in media particles moves down to occupy the PWT, which is actually the bane of most commercially prepared container media. Moisture locked in and on soil particles situated above water in the PWT moves quite freely through media by diffusion, so there is never a saturated 'core', only the PWT if the medium supports one. What we really want, is for the PWT to disappear as fast as possible, so a favorable volume of air can return to the soil ASAP. Roots in soggy media begin to die very quickly, often within a few hours or less at temperatures above 60-65*, so PWTs are a decidedly bad thing. Remember please, that here we are looking at media from the plant's perspective. I acknowledge that a PWT can be a necessity to accommodate our ability or our prioritization in terms of how often we can water, but that doesn't change the fact that media that do not support a PWT and need more frequent watering offer greater opportunity, within the limits of other cultural factors, for plants to grow to their genetic potential. That's an important consideration, because if we knowingly use a soil that supports a PWT because it's more convenient, we are sacrificing some degree of growth and vitality on the altar of that convenience. I try to build my soils to maximize water retention and still have no (or very little) perched water. The cyclic death and regeneration of fine rootage exposed to the anaerobic conditions of media that support PWTs is very expensive from the perspective of energy outlay. Energy that might have gone into blooms, fruit, foliage, or just increasing biomass, must be directed to root regeneration subsequent to each time we dare allow our planting to be irrigated to container capacity. Surely drainage helps and is good generally, but you are assuming it is the only way. I think you can see from my offerings that how I approach container media is more complex than only a single narrow perspective would allow. Al I've seen in your other posts where you refer to capillary action of soils as a negative. I couldn't disagree more. Capillary action is the savior of a soil mix; it's the vehicle that brings wet core water & water from the perched water table you described up to the drying surface, and balances moisture throughout the pot. It eliminates the perched water table. Peat has it and bark doesn't. I've never referred to capillary action as a negative. It just is what it is - the product of adhesion + cohesion - no more friend or foe than gravity or diffusion, which is something you didn't consider. Plants absorb water a molecule at a time, and water readily diffuses in media of large particles due to superior gas exchange. Here again, it's kind of a personal choice. You may prefer a soil with good wicking capabilities, but along with that comes the fact that the better they wick the more perched water they support. I, on the other hand, prefer a soil with good gas exchange (diffusion) and no PWT. The price I'm willing to pay is a strengthened watering can arm. ;o) Bark and peat feel dry to the touch when they reach about 40% moisture content, but plants can still extract water from media particles down to about 30-25%, so 'feels dry' isn't necessarily dry. There's a cush there. I understand what's required for wicking SWCs and how water retention in wick-irrigated media varies from media watered from the top, so we can save that talk for another time. Water starts to perch in containers when the soil particles are something just a little larger than .1". As particle size decreases, the ht of the PWT increases inversely. Whether or not bark holds perched water depends on it's size. Obviously, bark the size of Sugar Pops will hold no perched water, but bark ground to the consistency of peat will. Peat may initially hold more air and water than composted bark, but we all know that compaction is a considerable issue for peat; and conifer bark breaks down at roughly 1/4-1/5 the rate of peat, all cultural influences equal. I point to the fact that I always suggest partially composted or uncomposted bark in the soils I use, in sizes up to 3/8" to ensure no or minimal perched water. The grower can then add finer particulates as he/she sees fit to adjust the water retention of the media. When you start with fine particulates, it's very difficult to amend them to increase drainage/aeration, though as noted above, you CAN add materials like perlite that decrease the volume of water the soil can hold. It just makes more sense to me to approach this from the perspective of building a soil that holds no perched water, but is capable of holding an adequate volume of water in micro-pores, leaving macro-pores largely open, than it is to adopt a soil that, at container capacity, always has a significant fraction of available macroporosity clogged with water. Again, it has much to do with trade offs and what we are willing to do insofar as watering frequency (convenience), but the more highly aerated soil with better gas exchange, which occurs partially because we need to irrigate more frequently, offers better potential. I've grown extensively in both, and if the results weren't significantly better, I'd probably still be growing in a peat or compost-based soil. As always, YMMV. Good talking to you Tom. Al

I had clay at my last house...everywhere. Really makes you appreciate nice black soil. This may be a long post, but I have a lot to say. In hindsight...and my main bit of advice to you...I should have spent 3-5 years (or however many years it would take) amending the soil before planting (anything, not just hosta)...and I should have spent the time, $$, and effort to amend the ENTIRE planting bed, OR...raise the beds way up high with good soil. Here was my big mistake...I only amended the hosta holes just where the planting hole was. I tried to go farther out & when I did it wasn't very far...a few inches maybe. Digging the bare minimum hole in clay was hard enough, ya know?...AND...hostas grow on the driveway, right? Growing on the driveway would be easier than in clay IMO. If the clay had any workability, I would throw away the clay chunks and mix anything workable with compost. The clay easily 'ate up' the compost, so in a year some of the hostas would sink down into their clay holes and have to be lifted due to not enough soil. Because of this, "tending" to my hostas did not mean walking around & enjoying the plants. It meant regularly monitoring the health of the plant, and digging/replanting. When I dug up and re-planted it meant amending the soil all over again. Spent a lot of money on bagged compost because I couldn't make enough to keep up. If I would have dug a huge honkin' hole & amended really far out from the hosta, I think I would have had a few less worries. Doing it the way I did, my hosta were more susceptible to squirrels and other surface-digging pests. Everything was clay and it was hard. Come up to a hosta...softer & squishier soil than everywhere else...you bet they are going to dig right there. Root sections would be exposed and/or displaced to the surface. Squirrels would plant walnut and buckeye seeds within inches of the crowns. I'd dig out walnut shells regularly. Disturbing roots is always a setback to some capacity. When I dug out a hosta and some roots made their way out of it's amended hole and into the clay, consider the new roots 'goners'. Soil was too hard & sticky to allow roots to release with the rest of the plant. The clay was so hard to dig, that attempts to excavate the new roots in the clay were not even worth it. The water issue was not pleasant. Because I dug out clay in plant spots only, visualize the planting bed like a muffin baking pan. Where does the water go when you pour it on top of the muffin pan?...it spreads and lands in the divots. Once the water was in the divots, it would disperse into the surrounding clay, but pretty slow. I was on constant watch for root rot because of that and lost a few. I also learned that I had to regularly water the entire planting beds and keep the clay lightly moist at all times. I had a moisture meter, and I was constantly digging experimental holes to see what the moisture was like below the surface. When clay dries out it's like a brick...literally...and repels water. Keeping clay slightly moist will allow it to take in more water...but there was and art and science to keeping the moisture at a good level...never too wet, never too dry. I remember I used to pray for NO rain because it was easier to water myself and keep my system going. Didn't want Mother Nature messing with my water schedule. I hope I'm not a downer to your day. I'm listing out problems & maybe you can come up with your own way of dealing with potential problems & know what to look for if your hostas are not thriving. I did grow hostas in clay, and many did quite well but it took a lot of work & learning. I'm thankful for my experiences with clay, but even more thankful my 70-year old current house doesn't have clay. Gayle ________________________________________ Gayle gave great advice, I wish she had posted it 5 years ago when I started gardening in clay, I would have followed every instruction to a tee. As it stands, I spend a lot more time improving the soil in new planting areas than I used to - I foolishly thought a lasagna bed could be ready in 1 season. Whn you have clay - it is easily 3 - 4 years before you have "good" soil unless you do a lot of tilling and amending along with the lasagna method and then tilling is defeating the purpose of trying to lasagna the easy way LOL! So anyway, yes, clay is a horror to garden in. Plan on watering a LOT even when you just got rain or it is about to rain but be cautious about it becoming water-logged. I actually lost hostas that were in the ground in an area I thought would be okay because they were in standing clay slop for part of last year. Good-bye Ocean Isle and Phantom, two I really terasured, because the clay was too wet. :-( If I ever decide to move, number 1 priority at new house will be decent soil, which means I probably have to wait until my kids are in college since school has moved to a distant second LOL! Alexa ________________________________________ ________________________________________ Sun, May 30, 10 at 9:21 I also have pure clay under the first four or so inches of topsoil that was added when my house was first built. Every garden that has been added here started with a major soil renovation. I dug out 12 to 16 inches of the clay, hauled it away wheelbarrow load by load and then backfilled with dozens of 40-pound bags of top soil, compost and some peat moss thrown in for good measure, tilling it all up to a wonderful mixture. A lot of work, but has paid off tremendously both during the initial planting and in subsequent years, as I can easily remove, add, move plants without having to dig new holes and amend soil. About five years later, I got smarter and realized that I could have accomplished the same thing by simply pulling off the sod and adding the layers of top soil, compost and peat moss above ground, using my usual rocks to form the edges. Duh! Last year, I decided to expand the section on the south side of my house. Unfortunately, my gas line runs right through this section, and I was unable to do any substantial digging or tilling. And since it was next to my house, going up was not an option either. So I compromised by digging out (yes, I had the gas line marked first) very large areas for each hosta - about 2 to 3 feet across, depending on the mature size expected for each plant, and 2 feet deep. Then I backfilled with my usual mixture. My hope is that the holes are large enough to allow the roots to grow to their desired state without hitting the clay. It's year two, and so far things look okay. But I added a few ground covers this spring and had to deal with the clay in those spots, so adding plants will be very difficult going forward. And I will be on the lookout for the types of issues that Gayle brought up. Again, this would not be my recommended approach but was necessary due to constraints of the specific location. Good luck - clay soil is a beast. ________________________________________ Sun, May 30, 10 at 18:46 Maybe a photo of your soil will help the more experienced folks give a seasoned opinion. It was easy for me to know that my clay soil would not support any plants for any length of time - red, hard as a rock when dry and very heavy when wet. A clear line where the topsoil ended at 3-4 inches and the clay began. No signs of earthworms. My soil renovation was a lot of work, but when completed allowed me to plant immediately. Given your description, it sounds like your soil may be in better shape, so maybe you can avoid having to go that extent. Here's hoping that's the case! ________________________________________ Just FYI, I had earthworms in my clay too. The presence of earthworms is not a good indicator on whether clay soil is gardening-friendly. I would take the info presented and just be aware of what happens with clay...make adjustments necessary for your site. I find as long as I'm aware of the worst-case scenarios, I can always know what to look for and be pro-active. Thanks for the nice comments about my post. That yard was definitely a learning-lab for many different things. Gayle ________________________________________ Mon, May 31, 10 at 8:44 Melissa, I have soil similar to what you describe. My gardens for the most part are/were 12 to 18 inches of very heavy black clay and topsoil. When I started gardening here 10 years ago my next door neighbor, who had been collecting hostas for 25 years at that time, offered me a dozen large (wheelbarrow sized) mature fortunei, ventricosa, sieboldiana, montana, lancifolia, and divisions from older named varieties, to make room for new introductions. He was in acquisition mode big time, so I got a wonderful start on my gardens from him. I planted them like gayle0000 did, making (albeit huge,) hosta-sized holes, improving the soil in the planting area, digging another huge hole, etc.. From digging those holes and wrestling the hostas into place with the help of my then-teenage son and his buddy it was more than clear that the soil needed a lot of help. Over the next many years until now I did a sort of lasagna gardening (without knowing it was that), spreading bales of peat, mulching 4 to 6 inches deep with shredded oak leaves every fall, covering bare soil with newspapers or cardboard topped with bark mulch to block weeds, tossing the coffee grounds around the gardens, spreading compost around and between the planted hostas, and recycling my homemade potting soil every 3 years into the gardens. It has made a remarkable difference in the soil over time. Whereas we literally needed a pickaxe to start the original planting holes, now I can relatively easily (for a 60-year-old) dig a new planting hole with a transplant spade and lift pretty large hostas with a 4-prong fork. If I could start over, I would remove the clay soil, double dig each bed, raise the bed level, and start with good soil, which I did last summer when I removed two beds of perennials-run-wild to plant new hostas. Still, those original hostas are giants now and the soil around them is plant-able with little need for amendment, in the areas that I improved from the top down. ________________________________________ Mon, May 31, 10 at 12:16 My gardens were all nearly unworkable clay when I started in 1998. Today, they all have beautiful, workable soil. I used TONS of compost...I bought humus in bags from Walmart, it's cheap and worked great. It was backbreaking work double digging all of those beds, but the effort plus time took care of the clay. Any time I re-planted an area, I would take the time to incorporate more humus or compost...it made every job big. There was a soil conditioner that was very expensive which I found at Bachman's in 20 or 40 # bags. I believe it made a HUGE difference, probably even more/faster than the Humus. It was in the 3rd or 4th year that I re-dug my gardens and mixed it in...I was really getting tired of that clay! Probably mixed more humus in at the same time, knowing me. My gardens got overgrown and were unmanaged the 5th and 6th year, as I was ill. When I went back to working them again, I had beautiful, friable soil that is now a pleasure to garden in. Very occasionally, I find a hunk of clay, but it's usually near an edge of shrubs or something that didn't get worked much with the humus or the soil conditioner. Bachman's has a good article on working with clay...to their credit, they don't try to sell you the conditioner and state that the jury's still out on that. I think it worked wonders, but since I did a lot of humus, too, it was probably the combination. And, somewhere along the line, I think I put gypsum in there, too. Gypsum is usually quite cheap. For the conditioner, I'm not sure if the brand was Shultz, or not, might have been Turface (Profile) or something else. In fact, I think the Turface people may actually sell the product to Shultz. bachman's link: Here's a description of the Shultz product, I nabbed it from the Amazon site for you: Instantly improves any soil! Turns hard-to-work clay soil into a loose, rich growing medium - permanently. Adds thousands of storage spaces that hold air and water in nearly perfect balance in the soil. Clay Soil Conditioner improves drainage and aeration in heavy, compacted clay soils and helps improve water and nutrient retention in dry, sandy soils. Made from 100% natural fuller's earth, this unique mineral is kiln-fired creating ceramic granules that work to improve soil structure. Just one application lasts year after year! Clay Soil Conditioner? is a stable mineral that will not break down or compact over time. Use at the rate of 15% by volume: (1 part Clay Soil Conditioner? to 6 or 7 parts soil.) Here is a link that might be useful: another review for soil conditioner ________________________________________ Tue, Jun 1, 10 at 0:54 I have clay soil. I started with 3 hostas, and just amended the holes. After 3 years, didn't see much, if any increase on the hostas. Then one winter I was going crazy and ordered a bunch of hostas online. I decided I wanted to have great looking hostas, not just so-so. So I pulled out the hostas that were already there, expanded the bed, and rototilled in lots compost and some peat moss. I can't believe what a huge difference it made. The hostas are growing great since they don't have to try to expand their roots into rock hard clay soil. The 3 hostas I already had really took off - they were finally happy! I've read many threads where folks say that tilling is unnecessary; just place the compost on top of the soil and let the worms work it through. However, I had tried that and it didn't work. I ended up with the top 3/4 inch of soil being nice, with rock hard clay underneath. Tilling is the way to go. Deanna ________________________________________