The good news for you is that some of the best agricultural sites in the US consist of red clay soil. As long as your property DRAINS sufficiently, it's no big deal to tame this stuff. Trust me, I know from personal experience! Rather than looking at the big picture, why not focus on one small portion of your landscaping....one area that will make you happy each time you look at it? The ordeal of it ALL won't seem so insurmountable if you attack it a little bit at a time. Eric had the right idea in his earlier comment. I'd surely suggest that you turn as much of your property into something useful (and easier to take care of) instead of grass. Large landscape beds and tree collections can all be mulched to keep weeds down and to add to their attractiveness. Assorted mulches eventually break down and begin improving that soil, too. When we moved to our present home, this yard was pretty discouraging, too. I was horrified at this brick hard stuff we were supposed to grow stuff in. We tilled in a fair amount of aged bark fines and compost ONLY into those areas where we planned to add landscaping (shrubs, perennials, and annuals). The several trees we added, as well as the grass (mostly weeds when we got here), simply had to make do. Guess what? Trees planted directly into that hard red clay, with no amendments at all, grow like crazy! Those beds were amended once. We top dress with mulch and compost annually. We aerated the areas meant for grass heavily, then sodded with a hybrid Bermuda. After a very brief growing in period, the grass began to thrive like crazy on top of that red clay. Again, with very little watering (and we don't have an irrigation system). Come to find out, there's nothing difficult about growing in red clay soil. Well, we use a heavy duty auger to plant things rather than a shovel... but so what? ;-) Our plantings have thrived with less water, less fertilizer, less fuss than I have ever experienced in all of my years of growing! Go figure.

Sphagnum peat and coir have nearly identical water retention curves. They both retain about 90-95% of their volume in water at saturation and release it over approximately the same curve until they both lock water up so tightly it's unavailable for plant uptake at about 30-33% saturation. Coir actually has less loft than sphagnum peat, and therefore, less aeration. Because of this propensity, coir should be used in mixes at lower %s than peat. Because of the tendency to compact, in the greenhouse industry, coir is primarily used in containers in sub-irrigation (bottom-watering) situations. Many sources produce coir that is high in soluble salts, so this can also be an issue. Using coir as the primary component of container media virtually eliminates lime or dolomitic lime as a possible Ca source because of coir's high pH (6+). Gypsum should be used as a Ca source, which eliminates coir's low S content. All coir products are very high in K, very low in Ca, and have a potentially high Mn content, which can interfere with the uptake of Fe. I haven't tested coir thoroughly, but I have done some testing of CHCs (coconut husk chips) with some loose controls in place. After very thoroughly leaching and rinsing the chips, I made a 5:1:1 soil of pine bark:peat:perlite (which I know to be very productive) and a 5:1:1 mix of CHCs:peat:perlite. I planted 6 cuttings of snapdragon and 6 cuttings of Coleus (each from the same plant to help reduce genetic influences) in containers (same size/shape) of the different soils. I added dolomitic lime to the bark soil and gypsum to the CHC soil. After the cuttings struck, I eliminated all but the three strongest in each of the 4 containers. I watered each container with a weak solution of MG 12-4-8 with STEM added at each watering, and watered on an 'as needed basis', not on a schedule. The only difference in the fertilizer regimen was the fact that I included a small amount of MgSO4 (Epsom salts) to provide MG (the dolomitic lime in the bark soil contained the MG, while the gypsum (CaSO4) in the CHC soil did not. This difference was necessary because or the high pH of CHCs and coir.) for the CHC soil. The results were startling. In both cases, the cuttings grown in the CHC's exhibited only about 1/2 the biomass at summers end as the plants in the bark mix. I just find it very difficult for a solid case to be made (besides "It works for me") for the use of coir or CHC's. They're more expensive and more difficult to use effectively. The fact that some believe peat is in short supply (no where near true, btw) is easily offset by the effect of the carbon footprint of coir in its trek to the US from Sri Lanka or other exotic locales. That's the view from here. YMMV Al

tapla said... "Ideal pH for container gardening is about 1 whole number lower than growing in mineral soils" Again, you've simply thrown out another statement un-tethered to anything... I know, I know you intended it to be that way... but why? I've no idea. As far as water holding capacity... you choose to present it based upon weight where dried peat is going to be much lighter than an equal volume of coir and so appear to hold more water but to my thinking basing water holding capacity on volume would likely be more relevant for the gardener (in either container or in soil). This I've done myself and am quite sure coir is going to expand far more with a given volume of water. Water holding capacity is important provided air pore spaces remain equivalent... however perlite, pumice, or vermiculite is so often suggested as an addition with peat potting mixes to make one wonder why the need for these components... likely to maintain the air pore spaces due to compacting as the peat degrades and thus collapses within one growing season, its lignin content notwithstanding (btw, coir has significant lignin content as well, especially considering percentage of weight). And as every gardener knows, maintaining the air pore space is critical for healthy root development and growth of a good many plants (but not all plants however). Holding luff then is the important feature and not necessarily lignin content. Again, a simple comparison study would prove out which material best maintains adequate air pore space over time... so could you point me to one or more of these studies? I don't know the answer but would definitely like to see some studies conducted that could enlighten me on this subject. Until then, I've got to say the jury is still out... there's lots of theory out there but empirical evidence is what's called for to solve this particular inquiry. tapla said "Allelopathy - High levels of phenolic compounds known to be present in coir ... can profoundly affect root morphology, limiting length, number, and size of all orders of roots" From the foregoing statement I gather you're saying that coir has an allelopathic effect on ALL rooted plants? and thus you cannot and/or need not supply a list of affected plants... is this a correct reading of what you're meaning to infer? I'm surprised that this allelopathy of coir is not mentioned on the Internet somewhere... or at least from the simple yahoo search I've done so far. I'm so intrigued by this new piece of information that I'm going to take it from a theory and try to come up with empirical evidence of it by planting some radishes in dixie cups... a half dozen in a 50/50 with peat/soil and another half dozen in 50/50 with coir/soil... the soil will be the same (coming from my garden to supply the micros and biology) and then water the same amount each day with one teaspoon of Jack's Classic into a gallon of water. In approximately two weeks I'll wash the soil mix off the roots and compare. Do you see any complicating factors I should be aware of before beginning this little experiment? I'm excited. (BTW, the reason for radishes is merely speed of germination and the roots will not swell if I end the experiment too soon... I don't have the time or patience to carry on anything that's going to take more than 2 weeks at the most to complete... also I already have everything I need to do this in the shed right now). EDIT: In my search for allelopathic connection between phenolic compounds and plant root growth I came upon these tidbits from two separate sources... make of them what you will but they sure seem to complicate matters with previous claims of allelopathy of coir over peat... "Once the coir is freed from the fiber it goes through a maturation process to stabilize the product and this can take up to 6 months. During this process salt, tannins, and phenolic compounds are removed. It is buffered, washed and calcium nitrate is added to displace sodium and balance the pH." "Sphagnum and the peat formed from it do not decay readily because of the phenolic compounds embedded in the moss's cell walls." So does that mean peat too is allelopathic to plant roots? If so, then its a wash and I'd be wasting my time conducting the simple radish experiment? Final UPDATE: Okay I give up... After a single search I've already found several references to peat and peat bogs as being allelopathy to the germination of certain plants... I'm going to call the allelopathy claims against coir and peat a wash.

Hi Lynn: Thank you for sharing your experience with gypsum. EarthCo. also recommended gypsum for my soil ... never mind that I'm next to a limestone quarry, plus a gypsum plant. Bluegirl wrote in another thread on how she broke up her clay with gypsum. I have similar success using gypsum to break up my rock hard-clay. I get gypsum for $7 for 40 lbs. bag at my local feed store. It's quite acidic (has a higher % of sulfur), and burns my hand. So I always wear gloves when handle gypsum. The Encap sulfur sold at Menards $6 for a tiny 1 lb. bag contains a good % of gypsum .. I no longer buy that sulfur bag, since gypsum is cheaper, plus U. of CA at Davis documented that 1 lb. of gypsum is equivalent to using 5 lbs. of sulfur. I agree with their research. I put tons of that Encap sulfur on my clay ... did nothing, until months later, and tons of rain (at pH 5.6) ... then the soil finally crumble. With gypsum, it takes a few days to make my clay fluffy. Many sites and U. of Extensions alert that superphosphate harms the mycorrhizal fungi that help roots to obtain phosphorus & other nutrients from soil. However, Roses Unlimited recommended putting triple super-phosphate NPK 0-52-0 in the planting hole. So I put that stuff inside the planting hole of Queen of Sweden, plus sulfur. The flowering is 1/2 the rate of other roses without superphosphate. That's for 2 consecutive years. Last month I dug up Queen of Sweden, the root is woody & fibrous and reached down below. But there's an absence of secondary roots, or cluster-network. I didn't put superphosphate in Honey Bouquet, and when I dug that up, there's the fibrous brown woody main trunk, plus a vast network of secondary roots. Honey Bouquet gives 3 times more bloom than Queen of Sweden, at 1/5 the size. One of the danger of superphoshate is it also contains the toxic chemical cadmium, that would be poisonous is absorbed in edible plants. Plants can only utilize a small percentage of given phosphorus, the rest is quickly bound up with other elements in alkaline condition. When I use superphosphate in soluble form, as in MG Bloom Booster, it's really hard to dissolve. So I put vinegar in the bucket ... yet I still get phosphorus crystal stuck at the bottom. See below link of Australian Agricultural field study that showed APP (ammonium polyphosphate in fluid form) surpasses granular phosphorus. There's another Australian study that showed that the use of granular phosphorus over a span of 5 years did not increase their wheat yield much. I tested SOLUBLE Bloom Booster NPK 10-52-10, similar to APP, and the result was very good, if I use at 1/4 dosage. Too much chemical phosphorus can burn roots. Just a little bit helps roses with wimpy roots that can't acid-phosphatase, such as Jude the Obscure. Most roses don't need Bloom-Booster, they can secret acids to unlock phosphorus-tie-up in alkaline clay. It's the wimpy own-root like Jude the Obscure that has to be spoon-fed due to my alkaline water at pH 8. I use soluble fertilizer for pots, since pots leach out nutrients with our rain. In my alkaline dolomitic clay, no need for chemical fertilizer. My clay is fertile, with plenty of bacteria to fix nitrogen (air is composed of 78% nitrogen). I don't fertilizer my 26 trees, yet they are taller than 2-story house, plus lose leaves every winter. See picture below of my center garden, zone 5a Chicagoland: Here is a link that might be useful: APP fluid fertililzer surpasses granular phosphhorus This post was edited by Strawberryhill on Sun, Dec 8, 13 at 14:53